Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
Simple answer: What the fuck is a "soul"? And what the fuck is "spiritual energy"?
Spiritual energy is spiritual force times spiritual distance, of course.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 07, 2008, 01:53:11 AM
Simple answer: What the fuck is a "soul"? And what the fuck is "spiritual energy"?
Exactly....
please to be defining your terms.
Quote from: GA on November 07, 2008, 02:10:06 AM
Spiritual energy is spiritual force times spiritual distance, of course.
:lulz:
This is precisely the right question for a magic 8 ball!
No, I do not believe in the soul, as it is traditionally defined.
The mind and body seem to be intertwined to where the two cannot be separated; the body is in no way spiritual. Hence, the body dies along with the mind.
As far as being a physical manifestation of spiritual energy, I am uncertain as to what that has to do with the presence of a soul. Our body turns into a non-physical manifestation of spiritual energy after death or something? Then... um... no.
Quote from: Idem on November 07, 2008, 02:41:08 AM
No, I do not believe in the soul, as it is traditionally defined.
The mind and body seem to be intertwined to where the two cannot be separated; the body is in no way spiritual. Hence, the body dies along with the mind.
Not to mention that destroying the body can destroy the mind. *cough*Alzheimer's*cough*
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
Nope.
I try very hard not to believe anything, but sometimes its tough with gravity and barstools. Souls, spiritual energy... sounds like there would have to be a lot of definitions before I'd consider the idea likely.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
No, when it comes down to it, I'm kind of a materialist.
(http://cdn.channel.aol.com/channels/05/03/458ff6f1-002fc-02cf0-400cb8e1)
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
What difference would it make if we were or were not?
If you are asking if there's a life after death, well, again, what's the difference if there is or not?
I have the same questions re: this "free will" thing I keep hearing about.
I disagree with all you fucks.
I've seen a soul, so therefore it probably exists.
Re: The title of the thread: Nah.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
Chances are, there are very few ways you could define that in such a way that I would agree. So I'll say again, "nah."
Quote from: Lysergic on November 07, 2008, 04:24:14 AM
I disagree with all you fucks.
I've seen a soul, so therefore it probably exists.
What color was it?
No. When we kick it, we go back to the earth. Thats the way it should be anyway.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
No, because its
stupid.
I really don't want to believe in souls and ghosts and all that nonsense, but a couple friends of mine caught one on video.
They were playing around with a new camera in the winter park cemetery/golf course (that's how we roll here) and actually caught a thing with legs and all walking in front of their camera and had no idea at the time why the auto focus was going wonky till they got it home and played it back.
Assholes :argh!:
The whole idea of it just sounds so stupid, till you see it. Then you're all weirded out.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 07, 2008, 01:53:11 AM
Simple answer: What the fuck is a "soul"? And what the fuck is "spiritual energy"?
Yeah, this.
I mean, listen, I am just a superstitious savage, but I'd like to see these terms defined more completely.
There is no soul. :sad:
If there would be, you could buy them. (some people think that you can already)
The word "soul" implies something separable from the body. I don't think there is soul.
Quote from: Squiddy on November 07, 2008, 06:19:43 AM
I really don't want to believe in souls and ghosts and all that nonsense, but a couple friends of mine caught one on video.
They were playing around with a new camera in the winter park cemetery/golf course (that's how we roll here) and actually caught a thing with legs and all walking in front of their camera and had no idea at the time why the auto focus was going wonky till they got it home and played it back.
Assholes :argh!:
The whole idea of it just sounds so stupid, till you see it. Then you're all weirded out.
Again, reminds me of JDatE. Creepy shadow people.
Are you gonna find it for us?
the spirit and matter divided so that people who worship spirit can distinct themselves as an ingroup from people who worship matter. it's a big ego trip affirming 'affiliation'. we're all here staring into each other's self-important eyes thinking "i'm better than you."
thats why poop jokes are funny.
everyone does it. (except my great-grandma)
imagine maintaining eyecontact with your worst enemy while the two of you pinch a loaf. I DARE YOU NOT TO GIGGLE!
(and my great-grandma is a fucking saint with no sense of humor)
Quote from: Cainad on November 07, 2008, 05:06:00 AM
Chances are, there are very few ways you could define that in such a way that I would agree. So I'll say again, "nah."
i think i'm on the same line as Cainad here.
I'm gonna say "no", unless you spin a very specific definition of the term "soul" and "spiritual energy", so specific in fact that it would be mostly confusing to conflate them with the words "soul" and "spiritual energy"--so again, "no".
I believe in an emergent property of complex biology that functions on a level above mundane physics.
I prefer to call it "mind" and I believe I've actually witnessed rare instances of it's manifestation, among the morass of brain-dead humanity.
The only difference between the concepts of "mind" and "soul" seems to be that the soul continues to exist, after the hardware is turned off. Strikes me as a bit far fetched but I'd like to be proven wrong.
Quote from: Kai on November 07, 2008, 05:29:56 AM
No. When we kick it, we go back to the earth. Thats the way it should be anyway.
THIS.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
yes in the form of electromagnetic waves, and vibrations of tiny little things called atoms.
that shit is trippy as fuck.
Quote from: Kai on November 07, 2008, 05:29:56 AM
No. When we kick it, we go back to the earth. Thats the way it should be anyway.
Exactly
My body is the sum total of my existance, my mind is simply a function of my body. Even after my mind and body decay the energy that went into creating me will continue to exist in ever changing forms.
Fear of the end of conciousness; Thats vanity.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 07, 2008, 10:06:05 AM
I believe in an emergent property of complex biology that functions on a level above mundane physics.
Also this.
Y'all are making James Brown cry.
James Brown: Godfather of Soul, and general A Soul.
(http://cdn.channel.aol.com/channels/05/03/458ff6f1-002fc-02cf0-400cb8e1)
Coincidentally, I've never believed in James Brown either
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 01:47:43 PM
Y'all are making James Brown cry.
James Brown: Godfather of Soul, and general A Soul.
(http://cdn.channel.aol.com/channels/05/03/458ff6f1-002fc-02cf0-400cb8e1)
This is soul I can believe in.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 07, 2008, 11:27:41 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 07, 2008, 05:29:56 AM
No. When we kick it, we go back to the earth. Thats the way it should be anyway.
THIS.
Are you saying this as reincarnation? Or that our bodies are biodegradable and become dirt? Because I believe in both.
Yes, fuck you all, I believe in reincarnation.
I don't believe in a soul as defined by Christianity and other religions. I don't believe there is this apparition that will float up to the heavens after I draw my last breath. However, it's hard to not consider that there is a little something more to us then an assembly of biological functions. I have this central locus of awareness, a manifestation of me, RWHN, that seems like it is unique to me. That there is something behind my eyes driving me to be me. I guess I would tend to think of this as a kind of energy or something, but at death, I imagine it being an energy that dissipates, and sort of evaporates into the world after I'm dead. Kind of like it's part of some cycle similar to a water cycle.
Or maybe I'm just high on caffeine right now.
Quote from: Suu on November 07, 2008, 04:06:54 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 07, 2008, 11:27:41 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 07, 2008, 05:29:56 AM
No. When we kick it, we go back to the earth. Thats the way it should be anyway.
THIS.
Are you saying this as reincarnation? Or that our bodies are biodegradable and become dirt? Because I believe in both.
Yes, fuck you all, I believe in reincarnation.
I believe in reincarnation myself. Whether it is my soul, or higher conscious, or spirit, or some floaty ball that survives my death, I don't know, but I believe some "essence" of my"SELF" survives and gets to try to do it right the next time.
My body however, will be burnt to ashes and flushed down the toilet because all drains lead to the ocean right?
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 01:47:43 PM
Y'all are making James Brown cry.
James Brown: Godfather of Soul, and general A Soul.
(http://cdn.channel.aol.com/channels/05/03/458ff6f1-002fc-02cf0-400cb8e1)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/RHWNSEAL.jpg)
If the primary 'evidence' of a 'soul' is the experience of self consciousness, then what do we make of people that have memory problems?
I was hearing this story about a fellow who had a problem with his memory (i believe it was on a radiolabs show) such that he had a perpetual sense of novelty. He woke up every morning believing that he was fresh out of the box, brand new, just created. He was drawing breath for the very first time. He was seeing everything for the very first time. He even kept a journal explaining all this, and why every other entry before this last one was false, and that this day was truly his first.
It seems that continuity of memory is integral to the concept of self and soul. It strikes me that people don't make as much of a fuss about whether they existed before they were born, but it is the same story..... Just not as much to worry about because that discontinuity is crossed, and every thing's ok?
Quote from: Khara on November 07, 2008, 04:25:20 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 07, 2008, 04:06:54 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 07, 2008, 11:27:41 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 07, 2008, 05:29:56 AM
No. When we kick it, we go back to the earth. Thats the way it should be anyway.
THIS.
Are you saying this as reincarnation? Or that our bodies are biodegradable and become dirt? Because I believe in both.
Yes, fuck you all, I believe in reincarnation.
I believe in reincarnation myself. Whether it is my soul, or higher conscious, or spirit, or some floaty ball that survives my death, I don't know, but I believe some "essence" of my"SELF" survives and gets to try to do it right the next time.
My body however, will be burnt to ashes and flushed down the toilet because all drains lead to the ocean right?
reincarnation only makes sense if we're all one whole SELF. that way when individuals die and individuals birth there is only one perpetuation. i'm not saying it's 'true' or that i believe this, but to say my 'individual' self is reborn is just idle speculation.
So, since we haven't had any concrete definitions yet, I'll make some observations.
In the Bible, particularly the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for soul is "Nephesh". The root word that this is based on means 'to breathe' and it's translated, based on context, to everything from a living human, to beast, fish, himself, herself, etc etc.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Soul requires 'breath', that is, Soul meant a living being, NOT a supernatural entity. Of Adam it says:
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
"living being" is the NIV translation of nephesh.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
King James says 'soul'. Note however, that the 'breath of life' is what made the soul.
So, yes, I 'believe' (well as close as possible) that we are living, breathing beings.
There are many other religious belief systems that have promoted the idea of some never dying entity that modern monkeys all lump as 'soul'. I would note, for example that the Greek concept of soul had a lot of connotation tying to your consciousness ie. 'psyche' living on, rather than some Being of Light or Spiritual Entity. Plato, I think first argued for the soul being eternal... and even then it wasn't a 'spiritual energy' but an eternal being made up of the mind, emotions and desires... constantly re-inhabiting new physical bodies.
So I would guess that the soul in the sense of 'Nephesh' is true in some sense.
Soul in the Platonic sense, I doubt has much basis in reality.
I think the idea that we are 'spiritual energy' requires a specific model for the symbols 'spiritual' and 'energy' to have any value.
I think the idea that we 'live on' is true in some sense, but I think it may have more to do with the effects of our actions living on, rather than some ethereal entity.
However, I will admit that I have had experiences which cause me to consider that there might be something of us that gets recycled, I doubt that its more than our ingredients, but I'm open to the possibility that it may be. I personally would particularly enjoy the platonic kind of soul.
So if I hold my breath, do I lose my soul?
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 05:03:23 PM
So if I hold my breath, do I lose my soul?
only one way to find out.....
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 05:03:23 PM
So if I hold my breath, do I lose my soul?
If you hold it until you die, then according to the ancient Hebrews, "yes". (Or whatever 'Yes' is in ancient Hebrew)
i thought the Ruach was the 'breath' (divine breath, etc) and the nephesh was more akin to soul.
Quote from: Burns on November 07, 2008, 05:12:40 PM
i thought the Ruach was the 'breath' (divine breath, etc) and the nephesh was more akin to soul.
Ruach is more like breath or divine breath, correct. Nephesh is the 'breathing, living being'. So the Ruach is what made Adam become Nephesh, rather than his initial state as a pile of mud.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Ruach); and man became a living soul(Nephesh).Ruach also references YHVH's creative activity... so its the tool or the power which creates everything in Gen 1 and 2... as ruach gives nephesh life, Ruach (when tied to Jove) gives the Universe life.
Quote from: Risus on November 07, 2008, 08:37:58 AM
Quote from: Squiddy on November 07, 2008, 06:19:43 AM
I really don't want to believe in souls and ghosts and all that nonsense, but a couple friends of mine caught one on video.
They were playing around with a new camera in the winter park cemetery/golf course (that's how we roll here) and actually caught a thing with legs and all walking in front of their camera and had no idea at the time why the auto focus was going wonky till they got it home and played it back.
Assholes :argh!:
The whole idea of it just sounds so stupid, till you see it. Then you're all weirded out.
Again, reminds me of JDatE. Creepy shadow people.
Are you gonna find it for us?
I searched my hard drive for it last night but it must have gotten lost somewhere when my computer was worked on. I'll have Mr Squid look through my old hard drive (where it should be) and see if it's on there. Otherwise I might have to try to get it from my friend again, which would take a while.
It's definitely worth looking at though. Weird.
(and i hate it when my shit gets lost :argh!: )
A member of my 501st Garrison is on the home team for TAPS, and Wheezy (Brian) from the actual Ghost Hunters show is an inactive member of the Legion as well.
The fucking stories I've heard. :eek:
I believe in consciousness transcending death, but I don't believe in a "soul".
Rat: Many cultures hold the seat of life as being the breath. In Hawaiian, Ha (translating to breath of life) is also the number four, the number of the four great gods, and the traditional number system is based around 4.
It also makes the word aloha make sense, which literally means "in the presence of the breath of life".
Quote from: Hoopla on November 07, 2008, 05:43:53 PM
I believe in consciousness transcending death, but I don't believe in a "soul".
What do you believe to be the mechanism behind consciousness transcending death? and if you believe that consciousness is seperable from the body, what is the difference between that and a 'soul'?
Quote from: Kai on November 07, 2008, 07:15:33 PM
Rat: Many cultures hold the seat of life as being the breath. In Hawaiian, Ha (translating to breath of life) is also the number four, the number of the four great gods, and the traditional number system is based around 4.
It also makes the word aloha make sense, which literally means "in the presence of the breath of life".
very interesting! i'll keep that one in my pocket....
Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2008, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 07, 2008, 05:43:53 PM
I believe in consciousness transcending death, but I don't believe in a "soul".
What do you believe to be the mechanism behind consciousness transcending death? and if you believe that consciousness is seperable from the body, what is the difference between that and a 'soul'?
A) I haven't decided that as of yet. I should have mentioned that I don't
always believe the above.
B) Semantics.
What do you mean, "Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?"
In the first, place, matter is energy. There is no difference except in terms of density, and maybe in terms of vibration if you listen to Tool. Learn to Einstein, please.
Secondly, wtf is it with Humans and their unyielding addiction to dualism and false dichotomies? The "physical world" is merely one corner of a very big and very strange universe comprised of energy. Thinking of it this way can help you let go of the absurd pressure to wonder what will happen when you die.
What happens when you die is the same thing that is happening now: stuff happens, and you're not consciously aware of hardly any of it.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2008, 04:45:29 PM
If the primary 'evidence' of a 'soul' is the experience of self consciousness, then what do we make of people that have memory problems?
I was hearing this story about a fellow who had a problem with his memory (i believe it was on a radiolabs show) such that he had a perpetual sense of novelty. He woke up every morning believing that he was fresh out of the box, brand new, just created. He was drawing breath for the very first time. He was seeing everything for the very first time. He even kept a journal explaining all this, and why every other entry before this last one was false, and that this day was truly his first.
It seems that continuity of memory is integral to the concept of self and soul. It strikes me that people don't make as much of a fuss about whether they existed before they were born, but it is the same story..... Just not as much to worry about because that discontinuity is crossed, and every thing's ok?
This reminds me a couple of things that I've read by Oliver Sacks. He's a British neurologist that has written a couple of popular books about his patients. I'll see if I can dig any of them as ebooks. I really need to reread "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat".
I believe I have a soul but nobody else does.
Quote from: william blake, the marriage of heaven and hellAll Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.
1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.
But the following Contraries to these are True
1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal Delight.
Interesting topic. My take on 'reincarnation' come from studying alot of Zen and going back to the root words in Sanskrit, and it boils down to this:
The Self who is reading this Now is NOT the Self who walked through the door and sat down at the computer.
That's it. That's all there is to reincarnation. It happens to me countless times each day.
Now, this ties into how much the term Karma has been misinterpreted by the west (doubly so if you go with the Wheel of Karma symbolism). Karma means the inertia of thought/action (the original Sankrit does not make a distinction between the two).
Almost all Buddist/Zen metaphors deal with What Is Happening Right Fucking Now. Thus, saying that if you're attached to your negative Karma, you'll end up as an Animal (one of the categories in the Wheel metaphor), simply means that you're too attached to the fight/flight/food/fucking aspects of your body _and_ if you come into a situation where you can't let that go and those instincts will screw you over... well, you get screwed over.
You don't turn into a beetle or frog or anything "upon death". Similarly, with the 'Deva' category, if you get into a situation where your holy, aloof, compassionate, god-like attitudes will fuck you over... and you can't let go of them... you get screwed.
Now, the thing to understand about Karma is it's kinda like pirating files on teh internet via BitTorrent. You can give out a 'copy' of your Karma, but you still have said Karma. Get pissed off and yell at some-one at work? Wow. Now they're pissed off, and you still are too. This will effect both of your days unless a mindful effort to dissolve said Karma is made. And it ain't simple, yo. Say you take a deap breath and calm down, but later the girl you yelled at comes back to your desk while you're on break and poisons your goldfish. There's your Karma again, sucka.
And now, a Zen parable:
23. Eshun's Departure
When Eshun, the Zen nun, was past sixty and about to leave this world, she asked some monks to pile up wood in the yard. Seating herself firmly in the center of the funeral pyre, she had it set fire around the edges. "O nun!" shouted one monk, "is it hot in there?"
"Such a matter would concern only a stupid person like yourself," answered Eshun.
The flames arose, and she passed away.
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 06:51:09 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 07, 2008, 01:53:11 AM
Simple answer: What the fuck is a "soul"? And what the fuck is "spiritual energy"?
Yeah, this.
I mean, listen, I am just a superstitious savage, but I'd like to see these terms defined more completely.
OK... Do you believe in spiritual
exergy?
[ :fap: + :kingmeh: = :? ]
Quote from: Telarus on November 08, 2008, 09:07:23 AM
Interesting topic. My take on 'reincarnation' come from studying alot of Zen and going back to the root words in Sanskrit, and it boils down to this:
The Self who is reading this Now is NOT the Self who walked through the door and sat down at the computer.
Spiffy. But irrelevant to the discussion at hand, methinks.
The concept of reincarnation predates the Buddha. The idea that a portion of what you and/or others call 'you' comes back later in some other form is as old as humanity, and dates back to when someone started noticing that the sabretooth that's been stalking him and making his life hell reminds him of like his dead mother-in-law. I think that's more what we're talking about here.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 08, 2008, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Telarus on November 08, 2008, 09:07:23 AM
Interesting topic. My take on 'reincarnation' come from studying alot of Zen and going back to the root words in Sanskrit, and it boils down to this:
The Self who is reading this Now is NOT the Self who walked through the door and sat down at the computer.
Spiffy.
Thanks.
QuoteBut irrelevant to the discussion at hand, methinks.
I disagree. If you're going to talk about a 'soul' as a separate thing from the 'body' you're going to introduce a lot of a priori assumptions that come along with that dualism.
But you're right that traditions prior to Buddism had the cyclic rebirth conception of reincarnation (I touch on this briefly with the term "Jiva" in the 5 Apostles of Discordia, Part 1: Sri Syadasti post). In that mythos, even a 'godling' (~consciousness in a different reality, for everything is 'god') has to reincarnate as a human in order to achieve moksha, or liberation. This is called Samsara, or the endless cycle of death and rebirth.
Gautama's realization (and this has been kept fairly esoteric, because he chose to use the language/metaphors of the time to explain this to the lay people) was that this process does not necessitate that the body die in order to achieve the next stage in this cyclic re-birth. The reason he rejected this necessity was that the Hindic cult leaders at the time used this model as an excuse to segregate their population into different classes and seriously oppress certain of them, which they could then blame on the 'Untouchables' themselves for having bad enough Karma to get born as an Untouchable. The Jainist philosophy itself was a rejection of the Hindic bureaucracy, but they removed themselves from the societies that perpetuated that oppression and went to lead ascetic lives in monasteries, while still retaining the basic concepts of Samsara.
Now, while I reject this aspect of reincarnation, I don't place it firmly in the bullshit category like Penn and Teller would. The stories about children knowing nursery rhymes in other languages without having had exposure to those languages (as researched by Rupert Sheldrake in his Morphogenetic field theory) give at least some credit to the idea that _something_ lives on. I just don't see that _something_ as a 'soul' in either the eastern or western interpretation of the idea.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2008, 04:45:29 PM
It seems that continuity of memory is integral to the concept of self and soul.
I'm less sure about that - in fact I think that's part of the point about a soul, that there's an essential 'you' that transcends memory.
Interestingly, one of the best expressions of this I've seen is the final episode of the anime series "Evangelion" - the main character initiates a sort of universal consciousness event, and a large part of the episode is him experiencing he and his friends in a normal high-school as opposed to all the weird shit that had happened to him. In this way he is shown that he is who he is and they are who they are irrespective of setting and even experience. That was my reading of it anyway, I understand there's some debate about that ep and there's a sequel I've never seen that basically nullifies the original ending or something.
Quote from: Telarus on November 08, 2008, 10:49:14 PM
The stories about children knowing nursery rhymes in other languages without having had exposure to those languages (as researched by Rupert Sheldrake in his Morphogenetic field theory) give at least some credit to the idea that _something_ lives on. I just don't see that _something_ as a 'soul' in either the eastern or western interpretation of the idea.
Hoopla seems to have stated something similar. My question is, what's the difference?
Hoopla's answer, "Semantics," strikes me as something of a cop-out to be honest. It sounds like you're saying you believe in a soul but don't want to call it that. Which, if you'll forgive me for saying, sounds pretty damned silly.
The difference, as I see it, is conceiving the _something_ as an indivisible unit that gets passed along, or something that can get fragmented and spread out, in which case calling it "a soul" is semantically incorrect.
I am kind of partial to the Chaos Magic model that Peter uses in Liber Null and Liber Kaos.
It basically says that there is the Kia, we can't really describe the Kia usefully... its just a symbol marker. At best we can call the Kia singular... there is no duality... just the Kia. Without duality, there is no experience. So the Kia spins off bits of itself to become a duality and thus be able to experience.
Within each of us is Kia... sort of like a little 'chunk' of the big Kia that got spun off... of course, none of these words should be considered scientifically sound or physically descriptive. So inside of us is a Kia-bit, when we die, the Kia-bit is sucked back into the Kia along with the accumulation of our experiences. The Kia-bits thus may get spun off again and again, though not necessarily the same bits... like batter, once you stik the bits back together, you don't take them precisely back apart... esp if you mix it up a bit.
I don't believe any of this for a minute... but its an interesting model.
I'm inside you.
\
(http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/kia-pro-ceed-hatchback-1.jpg)
/
Feels good.
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 05:13:46 PM
I am kind of partial to the Chaos Magic model that Peter uses in Liber Null and Liber Kaos.
It basically says that there is the Kia, we can't really describe the Kia usefully... its just a symbol marker. At best we can call the Kia singular... there is no duality... just the Kia. Without duality, there is no experience. So the Kia spins off bits of itself to become a duality and thus be able to experience.
Within each of us is Kia... sort of like a little 'chunk' of the big Kia that got spun off... of course, none of these words should be considered scientifically sound or physically descriptive. So inside of us is a Kia-bit, when we die, the Kia-bit is sucked back into the Kia along with the accumulation of our experiences. The Kia-bits thus may get spun off again and again, though not necessarily the same bits... like batter, once you stik the bits back together, you don't take them precisely back apart... esp if you mix it up a bit.
I don't believe any of this for a minute... but its an interesting model.
How about this:
They're this stuff called matter, and a little bit of it is inside all of us. When we die the matter-bit goes back and joins all the other matter-bits. Matter doesn't really mean anything, but then we wouldn't have much to experience, so sombunal of us create a matter / spirit duality and start assigning meaning to all sorts of shit.
That better?
Quote from: you guys are fucking up my chi on November 11, 2008, 12:56:39 AM
I'm inside you.
\
(http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/kia-pro-ceed-hatchback-1.jpg)
/
Feels good.
:lulz:
"Do you believe in a soul?"
Yeah. One.
(http://www.azalea.it/Press/833/Pics/High/James%20Brown%20foto%20dAgostino.jpg)
you're like a child that walks into the middle of a movie and.......
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2008, 03:39:07 AM
"Do you believe in a soul?"
Yeah. One.
(http://www.azalea.it/Press/833/Pics/High/James%20Brown%20foto%20dAgostino.jpg)
Longcat is long and widedog is wide but only bigbrown is big in both directions :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2008, 03:39:07 AM
"Do you believe in a soul?"
Yeah. One.
(http://www.azalea.it/Press/833/Pics/High/James%20Brown%20foto%20dAgostino.jpg)
TITCM.
When you hold your breath, your soul is paused
what's all this bollocks about losing 21 grams when you die? :tinfoilhat: - That MUST be a soul!
[standard discordian bullshit] everything is real in some sense [/sdb]
Quote from: The Dark Monk on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
No.
Quote from: bones on November 11, 2008, 09:05:27 PMwhat's all this bollocks about losing 21 grams when you die? :tinfoilhat: - That MUST be a soul!
Snopes time, (http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp) too bad that the methodology of the experiment sucked.
yeah, that was my assumption.
would be vaguely interested if they did a proper test, but I guess there's no reason to since it seems to be obvious bullshit.
make a couple trying to conceive fuck on scales and see if they gain the grams at conception would be more humane than putting a dying dude on them, but even still no real scientist would bother because it's so daft
CALL THE MYTHBUSTERS!
Quote from: bones on November 11, 2008, 11:18:16 PM
CALL THE MYTHBUSTERS!
I snopsed the Mysthbusters, and it turns out they're false.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2008, 12:28:33 AM
Quote from: bones on November 11, 2008, 11:18:16 PM
CALL THE MYTHBUSTERS!
I snopsed the Mysthbusters, and it turns out they're false.
Mythbusters apparently half-asses a lot of shit. I don't trust them anymore.
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 02:01:44 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2008, 12:28:33 AM
Quote from: bones on November 11, 2008, 11:18:16 PM
CALL THE MYTHBUSTERS!
I snopsed the Mysthbusters, and it turns out they're false.
Mythbusters apparently half-asses a lot of shit. I don't trust them anymore.
APPARENTLY?? :lulz:
I don't think I've ever seen them 'prove' or 'disprove' anything satisfactorily.
Not that I've watched a great deal - mainly for that exact reason.
Although:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png)
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 04:02:54 AM
(http://cdn.channel.aol.com/channels/05/03/458ff6f1-002fc-02cf0-400cb8e1)
Quote from: bones on November 12, 2008, 02:40:07 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 02:01:44 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2008, 12:28:33 AM
Quote from: bones on November 11, 2008, 11:18:16 PM
CALL THE MYTHBUSTERS!
I snopsed the Mysthbusters, and it turns out they're false.
Mythbusters apparently half-asses a lot of shit. I don't trust them anymore.
APPARENTLY?? :lulz:
I don't think I've ever seen them 'prove' or 'disprove' anything satisfactorily.
Not that I've watched a great deal - mainly for that exact reason.
Although:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png)
I was going to post a long rant defending Adam and Jamie, but I think that about covers it. There is only so much you can do within the television medium. You can either have it be scientifically rigorous, or you can make it entertaining. Guess which one brings in more ratings?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 12, 2008, 02:50:32 AM
I was going to post a long rant defending Adam and Jamie, but I think that about covers it. There is only so much you can do within the television medium. You can either have it be scientifically rigorous, or you can make it entertaining. Guess which one brings in more ratings?
understood and fully respected.. but those ratings aren't me
So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 02:56:11 AM
So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
does it weigh 21 grams?
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing. Next, as in disappears I am meaning it is no longer in the body. Whether it becomes heat, dissipates into the cosmic collective or fuels McDonald's grills makes no difference. The human body is no longer moving meaning no more energy.
Maybe not zombies, but something that could have contributed to the legends. Think about it, a dead body that failed to discharge properly would most likely wonder about attempting to enact vague memories of a dead brain. It's a theory.
Quote from: bones on November 12, 2008, 03:08:53 AM
does it weigh 21 grams?
If you are implying 21 grams of solid were turned directly into heat...I don't even know what to make of that. The energy release would be massive.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:11:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing.
Gravity.Now stop being silly.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:11:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing. Next, as in disappears I am meaning it is no longer in the body. Whether it becomes heat, dissipates into the cosmic collective or fuels McDonald's grills makes no difference. The human body is no longer moving meaning no more energy.
Maybe not zombies, but something that could have contributed to the legends. Think about it, a dead body that failed to discharge properly would most likely wonder about attempting to enact vague memories of a dead brain. It's a theory.
:facepalm:
(http://www.dphotojournal.com/images/tutorials/zombie/zombie-tutorial-02.jpg)
Any excuse to post a zombie pic.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:11:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing. Next, as in disappears I am meaning it is no longer in the body. Whether it becomes heat, dissipates into the cosmic collective or fuels McDonald's grills makes no difference. The human body is no longer moving meaning no more energy.
Maybe not zombies, but something that could have contributed to the legends. Think about it, a dead body that failed to discharge properly would most likely wonder about attempting to enact vague memories of a dead brain. It's a theory.
A) Point me to a peer reviewed journal article devoted to an experiment where the laws of thermodynamics are violated of sound design.
B) Heat is heat. It is comprised of photons at infrared wavelengths. It doesn't disappear, it bounces around until hits another atom and looses all its energy or flies off into outer space.
C) There is always energy, unless you are at absolute zero. This is known as the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
D) Neurology does not operate like a computer, and a dead brain is set back in motion no better than a dead body is. When the cells are dead, they're dead, thats it.
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 03:13:00 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:11:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing.
Gravity.
Now stop being silly.
I am being serious. I don't know how many times in the various classes I have taken that I was told one thing and two years later it is being contradicted. I don't believe in absolutes outside of change. It is part of my upbringing to question everything.
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:19:03 AM
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 03:13:00 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:11:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing.
Gravity.
Now stop being silly.
I am being serious. I don't know how many times in the various classes I have taken that I was told one thing and two years later it is being contradicted. I don't believe in absolutes outside of change. It is part of my upbringing to question everything.
PLEASE TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF BASIC PHYSICAL LAWS.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it. It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it. It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
There is a such thing as Occam's Razor.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything
useful?
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:22:21 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:19:03 AM
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 03:13:00 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:11:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing.
Gravity.
Now stop being silly.
I am being serious. I don't know how many times in the various classes I have taken that I was told one thing and two years later it is being contradicted. I don't believe in absolutes outside of change. It is part of my upbringing to question everything.
PLEASE TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF BASIC PHYSICAL LAWS.
Please calm down, you are starting make me think that I am insulting your religion. Science is just science. It is imperfect as it stems for the imperfect. We can never say there are absolutes. We can only say it should be like this or it will work like this the majority of the time. It was the first lesson I was taught in my Physical Science class back in high school. There is too much as a species that we do not know. I was taught to avoid absolutes outside of change. Which like a good student, I questioned and probed until I was satisfied it made sense.
Strangely enough this attitude has let me see things differently than some. I realize it can drift into the unusual at times, but once again consider anything a possibility.
Once again, it could all be a lie.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 02:56:11 AM
The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own.
*facepalm*
Dude, the body is a machine whose engine is the heart. When it stops, the machine stops. Where does the energy that drives your car go when it runs out of gas?
Look, the existence of the soul can be neither proved nor disproved, pretty much by definition. The reason religions talk about the soul is that they say they have the secrets of how to determine what happens to it after you die. It is of course impossible to tell if they are right or not as well.
So I'm agnostic on the subject, myself. I go about my life and try to be a good person. If there's an afterlife that is determined based on some code of behaviour, I hope mine is reasonably in line with it. Anyone who claims to have the rulebook really has no more knowledge than
you do on the subject, and if they tell you otherwise they are full of shit.
I don't know if I have a soul, and I don't care. If I do, I hope that I'll be pleasantly surprised. If I don't, I won't have anything to worry about it because
I'll be fucking dead.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:26:50 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it. It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
There is a such thing as Occam's Razor.
You are absolutely right, lets us it here.
Which is more likely, man knows everything and can state absolutes or man is just a spec in the universe and creates laws to make himself feel better?
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:35:54 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 02:56:11 AM
The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own.
*facepalm*
Dude, the body is a machine whose engine is the heart. When it stops, the machine stops. Where does the energy that drives your car go when it runs out of gas?
Right, it does stop when out of gas, but on the zombie thing, thinking more like running on the fumes.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's a fine motorcycle you're riding.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:35:02 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:22:21 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:19:03 AM
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 03:13:00 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:11:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
No.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy which "disapears" at death is lost in the form of heat, or is stored as chemical energy Until that is converted into heat by the processes of another organism or process.
Also, zombies? O.o
First, I put no faith an any scientific laws as we monkeys tend to say it HAS to be this way and can't possibly be anything else. Our arrogance is amazing.
Gravity.
Now stop being silly.
I am being serious. I don't know how many times in the various classes I have taken that I was told one thing and two years later it is being contradicted. I don't believe in absolutes outside of change. It is part of my upbringing to question everything.
PLEASE TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF BASIC PHYSICAL LAWS.
Please calm down, you are starting make me think that I am insulting your religion. Science is just science. It is imperfect as it stems for the imperfect. We can never say there are absolutes. We can only say it should be like this or it will work like this the majority of the time. It was the first lesson I was taught in my Physical Science class back in high school. There is too much as a species that we do not know. I was taught to avoid absolutes outside of change. Which like a good student, I questioned and probed until I was satisfied it made sense.
Strangely enough this attitude has let me see things differently than some. I realize it can drift into the unusual at times, but once again consider anything a possibility.
Once again, it could all be a lie.
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:36:43 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:26:50 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it. It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
There is a such thing as Occam's Razor.
You are absolutely right, lets us it here.
Which is more likely, man knows everything and can state absolutes or man is just a spec in the universe and creates laws to make himself feel better?
Which is more likely, the existence of a soul which we cannot measure, or the existence of physical laws which we can consistently measure?
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them. It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be. Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact. I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion.
My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat. We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat. My point is still valid in that area.
As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation. Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine. We even jump start them when they stop running.
Or I could still be lying.
BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best. All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them. It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be. Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact. I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion.
My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat. We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat. My point is still valid in that area.
As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation. Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine. We even jump start them when they stop running.
Or I could still be lying.
BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best. All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.
A) Are you suggesting we do away with peer review? REAL bright ideal there. Also, lets go back to bloodletting and exorcisms!
B) Yes...we've already established that heat is photons within the infrared range, and that it is also very measurable. Are you suggesting heat = soul?
C) No, it doesn't. Come back to me when you have a degree in biology, or at least some biological background under your belt.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
That's not what I said at all. It is all fine and dandy to base measurements upon measurements, but we must be prepared for the possibility of those measurements being wrong. If say for instance down the proverbial road we find that 1+1 does not equate to two, then everything we have based on that is now drivel. We could be wrong. I am at least willing to admit it. I am monkey. I do not know the entirety of the universe. What I do know is all of the other monkeys who are talking are in the same boat as I am. They could be wrong as well. Then again they might have gotten lucky and be right. Hooray if that is the case, but I can't count it an an absolute. I can put some faith into it. I can believe they are right, but deep down it is still only a belief and not a fact.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
That's not what I said at all. It is all fine and dandy to base measurements upon measurements, but we must be prepared for the possibility of those measurements being wrong. If say for instance down the proverbial road we find that 1+1 does not equate to two, then everything we have based on that is now drivel. We could be wrong. I am at least willing to admit it. I am monkey. I do not know the entirety of the universe. What I do know is all of the other monkeys who are talking are in the same boat as I am. They could be wrong as well. Then again they might have gotten lucky and be right. Hooray if that is the case, but I can't count it an an absolute. I can put some faith into it. I can believe they are right, but deep down it is still only a belief and not a fact.
....
You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?
I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:39:56 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them. It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be. Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact. I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion.
My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat. We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat. My point is still valid in that area.
As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation. Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine. We even jump start them when they stop running.
Or I could still be lying.
BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best. All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.
A) Are you suggesting we do away with peer review? REAL bright ideal there. Also, lets go back to bloodletting and exorcisms!
B) Yes...we've already established that heat is photons within the infrared range, and that it is also very measurable. Are you suggesting heat = soul?
C) No, it doesn't. Come back to me when you have a degree in biology, or at least some biological background under your belt.
No, I never said to get rid of it, just stop taking it as fact and understand we could all be wrong.
I never suggested the heat was a soul. I am suggesting that the energy dispersed as heat upon the body's death could or might be a soul.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:43:18 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
That's not what I said at all. It is all fine and dandy to base measurements upon measurements, but we must be prepared for the possibility of those measurements being wrong. If say for instance down the proverbial road we find that 1+1 does not equate to two, then everything we have based on that is now drivel. We could be wrong. I am at least willing to admit it. I am monkey. I do not know the entirety of the universe. What I do know is all of the other monkeys who are talking are in the same boat as I am. They could be wrong as well. Then again they might have gotten lucky and be right. Hooray if that is the case, but I can't count it an an absolute. I can put some faith into it. I can believe they are right, but deep down it is still only a belief and not a fact.
....
You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?
I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.
I will admit I am a bit rusty, but what I remember most about the whole Scientific method is it starts with a question, then moves to a possible answer to that question. Once there, experiments are done to determine the possibility of the answer being true or false. Continue cycle until experiments show a pattern that is consistent with an answer. Things may have changed down the road, but it is the basic principle of the process.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:45:34 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:39:56 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them. It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be. Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact. I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion.
My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat. We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat. My point is still valid in that area.
As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation. Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine. We even jump start them when they stop running.
Or I could still be lying.
BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best. All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.
A) Are you suggesting we do away with peer review? REAL bright ideal there. Also, lets go back to bloodletting and exorcisms!
B) Yes...we've already established that heat is photons within the infrared range, and that it is also very measurable. Are you suggesting heat = soul?
C) No, it doesn't. Come back to me when you have a degree in biology, or at least some biological background under your belt.
No, I never said to get rid of it, just stop taking it as fact and understand we could all be wrong.
I never suggested the heat was a soul. I am suggesting that the energy dispersed as heat upon the body's death could or might be a soul.
So....it would follow then that all heat is soul matter? Or are you just completely inconsistent like that?
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:50:36 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:45:34 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:39:56 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them. It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be. Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact. I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion.
My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat. We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat. My point is still valid in that area.
As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation. Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine. We even jump start them when they stop running.
Or I could still be lying.
BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best. All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.
A) Are you suggesting we do away with peer review? REAL bright ideal there. Also, lets go back to bloodletting and exorcisms!
B) Yes...we've already established that heat is photons within the infrared range, and that it is also very measurable. Are you suggesting heat = soul?
C) No, it doesn't. Come back to me when you have a degree in biology, or at least some biological background under your belt.
No, I never said to get rid of it, just stop taking it as fact and understand we could all be wrong.
I never suggested the heat was a soul. I am suggesting that the energy dispersed as heat upon the body's death could or might be a soul.
So....it would follow then that all heat is soul matter? Or are you just completely inconsistent like that?
Or, maybe the soul moves about as heat like other forms of energy? Or the soul is composed the same energy that is found in everything? Hmmmm.....these concepts sound familiar.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:49:09 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:43:18 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
That's not what I said at all. It is all fine and dandy to base measurements upon measurements, but we must be prepared for the possibility of those measurements being wrong. If say for instance down the proverbial road we find that 1+1 does not equate to two, then everything we have based on that is now drivel. We could be wrong. I am at least willing to admit it. I am monkey. I do not know the entirety of the universe. What I do know is all of the other monkeys who are talking are in the same boat as I am. They could be wrong as well. Then again they might have gotten lucky and be right. Hooray if that is the case, but I can't count it an an absolute. I can put some faith into it. I can believe they are right, but deep down it is still only a belief and not a fact.
....
You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?
I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.
I will admit I am a bit rusty, but what I remember most about the whole Scientific method is it starts with a question, then moves to a possible answer to that question. Once there, experiments are done to determine the possibility of the answer being true or false. Continue cycle until experiments show a pattern that is consistent with an answer. Things may have changed down the road, but it is the basic principle of the process.
1) Have some sort of measurement, some sort of basal information, or from earlier experiments. The universe supplies more than enough of this.
2) Ask a question about said information. If you can't come up with any questions then you don't have enough curiosity to do scientific work.
3) Determine possible answers to said question. Formulate a hypothesis (which is not a guess, btw) based on previous data as an answer to said question.
4) Formulate and run an experiment to test said hypothesis.
5) Examine the results of the experiment, and determine whether the hypothesis is supported, or rejected.
repetio ad infinitumIf it doesn't follow the scientific method in some form, meaning, if it doesn't use physical data to form and test hypotheses through experiments that generate meaningful results which either support or reject said hypotheses, its not science.
And its not very realistic or useful either.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:53:04 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:50:36 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:45:34 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:39:56 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them. It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be. Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact. I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion.
My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat. We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat. My point is still valid in that area.
As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation. Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine. We even jump start them when they stop running.
Or I could still be lying.
BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best. All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.
A) Are you suggesting we do away with peer review? REAL bright ideal there. Also, lets go back to bloodletting and exorcisms!
B) Yes...we've already established that heat is photons within the infrared range, and that it is also very measurable. Are you suggesting heat = soul?
C) No, it doesn't. Come back to me when you have a degree in biology, or at least some biological background under your belt.
No, I never said to get rid of it, just stop taking it as fact and understand we could all be wrong.
I never suggested the heat was a soul. I am suggesting that the energy dispersed as heat upon the body's death could or might be a soul.
So....it would follow then that all heat is soul matter? Or are you just completely inconsistent like that?
Or, maybe the soul moves about as heat like other forms of energy? Or the soul is composed the same energy that is found in everything? Hmmmm.....these concepts sound familiar.
Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:59:00 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:49:09 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:43:18 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
That's not what I said at all. It is all fine and dandy to base measurements upon measurements, but we must be prepared for the possibility of those measurements being wrong. If say for instance down the proverbial road we find that 1+1 does not equate to two, then everything we have based on that is now drivel. We could be wrong. I am at least willing to admit it. I am monkey. I do not know the entirety of the universe. What I do know is all of the other monkeys who are talking are in the same boat as I am. They could be wrong as well. Then again they might have gotten lucky and be right. Hooray if that is the case, but I can't count it an an absolute. I can put some faith into it. I can believe they are right, but deep down it is still only a belief and not a fact.
....
You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?
I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.
I will admit I am a bit rusty, but what I remember most about the whole Scientific method is it starts with a question, then moves to a possible answer to that question. Once there, experiments are done to determine the possibility of the answer being true or false. Continue cycle until experiments show a pattern that is consistent with an answer. Things may have changed down the road, but it is the basic principle of the process.
1) Have some sort of measurement, some sort of basal information, or from earlier experiments. The universe supplies more than enough of this.
2) Ask a question about said information. If you can't come up with any questions then you don't have enough curiosity to do scientific work.
3) Determine possible answers to said question. Formulate a hypothesis (which is not a guess, btw) based on previous data as an answer to said question.
4) Formulate and run an experiment to test said hypothesis.
5) Examine the results of the experiment, and determine whether the hypothesis is supported, or rejected.
repetio ad infinitum
If it doesn't follow the scientific method in some form, meaning, if it doesn't use physical data to form and test hypotheses through experiments that generate meaningful results which either support or reject said hypotheses, its not science.
And its not very realistic or useful either.
So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:00:32 AM
Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
And I tell you even if you can, it is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:04:49 AM
So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.
If its not science, I'm not going to pass it off as science.
Also, :lulz: at obvious misdirect.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:04:49 AM
So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.
If its not science, I'm not going to pass it off as science.
Also, :lulz: at obvious misdirect.
Neither have I. I merely proposed a theory. We know something drives the human body, some of us choose to call it a 'soul'. Whether it is something divine or mundane matters not. The energy exist upon death it leaves the body. Where it goes is pure fluff. The energy exist, it can be measured and calculated. We know it is there as the body cannot move without energy. It really doesn't matter what its origins may be, it is there. Something causes the brain to think, the heart to pump, the lungs to breathe, and the eyes to see. Something causes the hate, the love, the confusion, and the curiosity. Sure it could be chemicals, but what causes those chemicals. IT ultimately leads to the energy which drives the human body. Why can't that energy be the soul? It is ultimately, what drives us all.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:16:54 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:04:49 AM
So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.
If its not science, I'm not going to pass it off as science.
Also, :lulz: at obvious misdirect.
Neither have I. I merely proposed a theory. We know something drives the human body, some of us choose to call it a 'soul'. Whether it is something divine or mundane matters not. The energy exist upon death it leaves the body. Where it goes is pure fluff. The energy exist, it can be measured and calculated. We know it is there as the body cannot move without energy. It really doesn't matter what its origins may be, it is there. Something causes the brain to think, the heart to pump, the lungs to breathe, and the eyes to see. Something causes the hate, the love, the confusion, and the curiosity. Sure it could be chemicals, but what causes those chemicals. IT ultimately leads to the energy which drives the human body. Why can't that energy be the soul? It is ultimately, what drives us all.
Very well put...I like lurking on this thread...'tis interesting.
Strangely enough, the whole creation aspect of Christianity makes sense if you equate 'God' with energy.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:05:56 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:00:32 AM
Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
And I tell you even if you can, it is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
knowing inner workings of mind, knowing about the body etc =/= useless
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:16:54 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:04:49 AM
So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.
If its not science, I'm not going to pass it off as science.
Also, :lulz: at obvious misdirect.
Neither have I. I merely proposed a theory. We know something drives the human body, some of us choose to call it a 'soul'. Whether it is something divine or mundane matters not. The energy exist upon death it leaves the body. Where it goes is pure fluff. The energy exist, it can be measured and calculated. We know it is there as the body cannot move without energy. It really doesn't matter what its origins may be, it is there. Something causes the brain to think, the heart to pump, the lungs to breathe, and the eyes to see. Something causes the hate, the love, the confusion, and the curiosity. Sure it could be chemicals, but what causes those chemicals. IT ultimately leads to the energy which drives the human body. Why can't that energy be the soul? It is ultimately, what drives us all.
....Okay, I'm gonna keep giving you chances because I'm enjoying this too much.
1) You proposed a hypothesis, not a theory, and you didn't base it on any previous data I know of so you more or less just made something up.
2) Biology drives the body, the same as it drives every other living thing. You know, proteins synthesis, metabolism, nutrient transport?
3) The energy that the body operates under is chemical energy from food. :|
4) The heart is caused to pump by several mechanisms, all physiological. The brain 'thinks' due to stimulus from the environment, and learning based on said stimulus. Sure, conciousness is emergent from the basics, but since you talked about heartbeat I figured you weren't going for that.
5) I don't have the space here to give you a full rundown of neural physiology. I don't know all of it myself, and I'm okay with that, because I know that physiological processes can and will be tested experimentally because they can be measured, so I am okay with changing my "belief" when that time comes if the details are a little different.
You've shown that you have absolutely no knowledge about basic biology, and no basis in reality.
Why don't you just go become a brethanarian, since you think the body gets its energy from somewhere more "divine" that daily consumption of biological material?
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:27:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:05:56 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:00:32 AM
Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
And I tell you even if you can, it is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
knowing inner workings of mind =/= useless
True. There are ways to measure and study consciousness outside of neuroscience though. Thats what Psychology is for. Its still measurable and testable, its just in emergent measurements rather than basal, physical measurements. The mind interacts with the world. Thats testable, and sometimes even measurable, quantifiable and quantifiable.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:27:30 AM
Strangely enough, the whole creation aspect of Christianity makes sense if you equate 'God' with energy.
How?
Also, because I thought it was relevant to the discussion: are there any innate ideas? "Innate" meaning "independent of interaction with the world" through the senses etc.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:35:34 AM
Also, because I thought it was relevant to the discussion: are there any innate ideas?
I don't consider the study of ideas to be a science though. ^_^
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:28:34 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:16:54 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:04:49 AM
So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.
If its not science, I'm not going to pass it off as science.
Also, :lulz: at obvious misdirect.
Neither have I. I merely proposed a theory. We know something drives the human body, some of us choose to call it a 'soul'. Whether it is something divine or mundane matters not. The energy exist upon death it leaves the body. Where it goes is pure fluff. The energy exist, it can be measured and calculated. We know it is there as the body cannot move without energy. It really doesn't matter what its origins may be, it is there. Something causes the brain to think, the heart to pump, the lungs to breathe, and the eyes to see. Something causes the hate, the love, the confusion, and the curiosity. Sure it could be chemicals, but what causes those chemicals. IT ultimately leads to the energy which drives the human body. Why can't that energy be the soul? It is ultimately, what drives us all.
....Okay, I'm gonna keep giving you chances because I'm enjoying this too much.
1) You proposed a hypothesis, not a theory, and you didn't base it on any previous data I know of so you more or less just made something up.
2) Biology drives the body, the same as it drives every other living thing. You know, proteins synthesis, metabolism, nutrient transport?
3) The energy that the body operates under is chemical energy from food. :|
4) The heart is caused to pump by several mechanisms, all physiological. The brain 'thinks' due to stimulus from the environment, and learning based on said stimulus. Sure, conciousness is emergent from the basics, but since you talked about heartbeat I figured you weren't going for that.
5) I don't have the space here to give you a full rundown of neural physiology. I don't know all of it myself, and I'm okay with that, because I know that physiological processes can and will be tested experimentally because they can be measured, so I am okay with changing my "belief" when that time comes if the details are a little different.
You've shown that you have absolutely no knowledge about basic biology, and no basis in reality.
Why don't you just go become a brethanarian, since you think the body gets its energy from somewhere more "divine" that daily consumption of biological material?
1) I proposed a theory, 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.
Re: kai Right. I suppose it would fall under philosophy then.
Re: False Profit. I know this may seem like semantics to you, but a "theory" in science is a hypothesis that has been tried and tested, "proven" to be true. A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations. A hypothesis is basically an educated guess that can be tested.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:38:03 AM
Re: kai Right. I suppose it would fall under philosophy then.
Re: False Profit. I know this may seem like semantics to you, but a "theory" in science is a hypothesis that has been tried and tested, "proven" to be true. A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations.
I don't have a problem with philosophy either. I just have a problem with it maskarading as science.
Also, thanks Idem for pointing that out.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:37:30 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:43:46 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:38:03 AM
Re: kai Right. I suppose it would fall under philosophy then.
Re: False Profit. I know this may seem like semantics to you, but a "theory" in science is a hypothesis that has been tried and tested, "proven" to be true. A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations.
I don't have a problem with philosophy either. I just have a problem with it maskarading as science.
Also, thanks Idem for pointing that out.Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:37:30 AM
Science is Philosphy.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:46:53 AM
Science is Philosphy.
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Science is a means to explain life and all that is around us. It is just more organized than most other philosophies.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:49:17 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:46:53 AM
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.
QuoteIt is just more organized than most other philosophies.
Which makes a big difference.
Try thinking about why your car won't start. Is it angry at you? Does it have a soul? That's philosophy.
Try thinking about why your car won't start, and then use previous experience to figure out why. Test different "solutions" etc. That's science.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:52:06 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:49:17 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:46:53 AM
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.
All of which requires thought. Applied thinking, but thinking nonetheless.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:52:06 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:49:17 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:46:53 AM
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.
science produces results, though. philosophy produces boring literature coursework.
Re: profit So which do you find more viable to explain the universe, science or philosophy?
science, of course. philosophy is too subjective.
Quote from: vexati0n on November 12, 2008, 05:55:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 05:37:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AM
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.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:04:07 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:05:49 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:08:37 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:05:49 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:08:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 06:06:47 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:04:07 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:08:37 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:05:49 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:13:07 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:08:37 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:05:49 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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?
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:15:51 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:13:07 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:08:37 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:05:49 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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?
Experience, things do exist outside of science and philosophy.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:11:34 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 06:06:47 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:04:07 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AM
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."
But it is useless for any practical reasons. I can think about what ideas are innate and what ideas aren't all I like, but I'm not about to claim me thinking about that has any practical application.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:16:40 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:15:51 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:13:07 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:08:37 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:05:49 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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?
Experience, things do exist outside of science and philosophy.
Experience is that which is derived through observation.
Science is that which is derived through observation.
Philosophy is that which is derived through thought independent of observation.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:18:12 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:11:34 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 06:06:47 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:04:07 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AM
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."
But it is useless for any practical reasons. I can think about what ideas are innate and what ideas aren't all I like, but I'm not about to claim me thinking about that has any practical application.
Why not? Does thinking about them give you possibilities on which paths to take within your life? I would say that is practical.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:20:05 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:16:40 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:15:51 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:13:07 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:08:37 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 06:05:49 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 05:57:53 AM
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?
Experience, things do exist outside of science and philosophy.
Experience is that which is derived through observation.
Science is that which is derived through observation.
Philosophy is that which is derived through thought independent of observation.
No Experience is anything you encounter. Whether the tree falls on you, or you are struck by lightning. Everything around you and happens to you is experience.
Science is an attempt to understand those experiences using a structured method.
Philosophy is an attempt to understand experience.
Honestly, when it all boils down to it all, it really does not matter what I think or believe or feel. It doesn't matter what scientist around the world tell you or show you or sell you. What it comes down to is if you have not experienced it for yourself, it is all pure drivel, meaningless word with no personal context.
With that I am out for tonight and probably won't be returning to this thread anytime soon. It is apparent my message of "We could all be wrong or right, decide for yourself." isn't making through this evening.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:24:07 AM
No Experience is anything you encounter. Whether the tree falls on you, or you are struck by lightning. Everything around you and happens to you is experience.
Science is an attempt to understand those experiences using a structured method.
Philosophy is an attempt to understand experience.
In the case of "Does fire hurt?", the case is different. You are describing a different "experience" than before.
With this new definition, I would agree that it is separate.
But in the case where you said learning fire hurts = experience, I would disagree.
Experience is seeing the light of the fire. Experience is feeling the pain of the fire. Experience is hearing the crackling of it. Experience is smelling the burnt smell. All separate, all inconsequential to each other.
Science is coordinating all of these together.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:28:15 AM
Honestly, when it all boils down to it all, it really does not matter what I think or believe or feel. It doesn't matter what scientist around the world tell you or show you or sell you. What it comes down to is if you have not experienced it for yourself, it is all pure drivel, meaningless word with no personal context.
With that I am out for tonight and probably won't be returning to this thread anytime soon. It is apparent my message of "We could all be wrong or right, decide for yourself." isn't making through this evening.
Yes, let's all sit around in our mud huts and shit ourselves to death of cholera because WE NEED TO EXPERIENCE IT FOR OURSELVES TO KNOW THAT IT SUCKS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE GODDAMN EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS TELL US ABOUT IT.
Nasturtiums,
is now a caps-lock zealot
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 06:32:19 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:28:15 AM
Honestly, when it all boils down to it all, it really does not matter what I think or believe or feel. It doesn't matter what scientist around the world tell you or show you or sell you. What it comes down to is if you have not experienced it for yourself, it is all pure drivel, meaningless word with no personal context.
With that I am out for tonight and probably won't be returning to this thread anytime soon. It is apparent my message of "We could all be wrong or right, decide for yourself." isn't making through this evening.
Yes, let's all sit around in our mud huts and shit ourselves to death of cholera because WE NEED TO EXPERIENCE IT FOR OURSELVES TO KNOW THAT IT SUCKS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE GODDAMN EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS TELL US ABOUT IT.
Nasturtiums,
is now a caps-lock zealot
:lulz:
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:28:15 AM
Honestly, when it all boils down to it all, it really does not matter what I think or believe or feel. It doesn't matter what scientist around the world tell you or show you or sell you. What it comes down to is if you have not experienced it for yourself, it is all pure drivel, meaningless word with no personal context.
With that I am out for tonight and probably won't be returning to this thread anytime soon. It is apparent my message of "We could all be wrong or right, decide for yourself." isn't making through this evening.
I'm retiring as well.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 06:32:54 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 06:32:19 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:28:15 AM
Honestly, when it all boils down to it all, it really does not matter what I think or believe or feel. It doesn't matter what scientist around the world tell you or show you or sell you. What it comes down to is if you have not experienced it for yourself, it is all pure drivel, meaningless word with no personal context.
With that I am out for tonight and probably won't be returning to this thread anytime soon. It is apparent my message of "We could all be wrong or right, decide for yourself." isn't making through this evening.
Yes, let's all sit around in our mud huts and shit ourselves to death of cholera because WE NEED TO EXPERIENCE IT FOR OURSELVES TO KNOW THAT IT SUCKS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE GODDAMN EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS TELL US ABOUT IT.
Nasturtiums,
is now a caps-lock zealot
:lulz:
LOOK AT ME, THE MAJUSCULES JUST SCREAM EXTREMIST!
ONLY SOUL I BELIEVE IN IS SOUL FOOD! NOM
Quote from: Frederieke Noodle on November 12, 2008, 08:42:10 AM
ONLY SOUL I BELIEVE IN IS SOUL FOOD! NOM
placenta is the only soul food.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AMI really don't even know how to put this....SPERMIES SWIM IN SUGAR FLUID.
LIES! Sperm tastes salty :argh!:
Jesus Fucking Christ! :eek:
Why the big circle-jerk about some idea of FP's not being SCIENCE?
This thread is called "Do you BELIEVE in a SOUL?", not "PROVE whether there's a soul with SCIENCE"
I can't even begin to cite references ITT, because it's way to long and circular and filled with BS, but it never occurred to me that the good Profit was making some scientific hypothesis with need for experimental evidence, he was just giving an idea, a perspective, and he even said it could be a lie. IMO KAI you have been totally unfair here, no need to have a cactus up your ass just because you've got a degree in biology and he suggested something that YOU think is unfounded crap. I think FP has held his own pretty well ITT, where you have been a little bit fanatical.
Keep the psychotic science pedantry out of a thread about belief.
Oh and "just thinking about it" is pretty much how Einstein came up with relativity. Philosophy or science?
Where has your "true-in-a" sense gone? :fnord:
bones,
-braced for the flames (all I wanted to know was how much it weighs :cry:)
You'll get flamed all right. The only thing that reacts more zealously than a religious fanatic when their belief system is under attack is a scientist.
:backs slowly out of thread:
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 06:06:47 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 06:04:07 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AM
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.
Thanks. The truth is I don't like to spend time explaining things when the explanations won't be put to good use. FP also failed to answer my basic questions and yes, spouted pseudo-science (pseudo meaning "false"). That, and I needed to sleep
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 10:16:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:01:48 AMI really don't even know how to put this....SPERMIES SWIM IN SUGAR FLUID.
LIES! Sperm tastes salty :argh!:
It also has basic ions in it, like every other body fluid. Tears taste salty, whats your point?
Are you saying tears are made of sugar too?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 11:38:48 AM
You'll get flamed all right. The only thing that reacts more zealously than a religious fanatic when their belief system is under attack is a scientist.
:backs slowly out of thread:
Or we just ignore the dumbfucks who forget that science is responsible for modern living. I firmly believe that if you don't like science, get the hell off your computer, turn your electricity and plumbing off, move out of your house into a yurt and start using "medical" techniques like bloodletting again. Yay, doesn't that sound like so much FUN?
The reason most biologists don't take the time to argue with creationists has nothing to do with not knowing answers. It has everything to do with not wanting to deal with people who can't understand basic biology (if they wanted to teach, they would have gone into education), having no patience for people who can't handle basic tennents of biology (like evolution), and frankly have better things to do, like real research that brings about new cancer treatments, or describing organisms new to science, or, I don't know, creating something practical from past research that increases our ability to cope with this modern world.
If fundies and pseudo-scientists can't grok this, then fuck em. We have better things to do than pander to people still stuck in the middle ages, not from oppression or poverty, but out of ignorance.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 11:51:37 AM
Are you saying tears are made of sugar too?
Tears can have sugars in them, just like sweat can have sugars in them. Body excretory fluids are composed of dissolved ions, which includes glucose, salts and other simple molecules which can become dissolved in water.
Seminal fluid is specifically for the movement and nutriment of sperm, so it contains lots of glucose, because those flagella don't move themselves.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 11:58:55 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 11:38:48 AM
You'll get flamed all right. The only thing that reacts more zealously than a religious fanatic when their belief system is under attack is a scientist.
:backs slowly out of thread:
Or we just ignore the dumbfucks who forget that science is responsible for modern living. I firmly believe that if you don't like science, get the hell off your computer, turn your electricity and plumbing off, move out of your house into a yurt and start using "medical" techniques like bloodletting again. Yay, doesn't that sound like so much FUN?
The reason most biologists don't take the time to argue with creationists has nothing to do with not knowing answers. It has everything to do with not wanting to deal with people who can't understand basic biology (if they wanted to teach, they would have gone into education), having no patience for people who can't handle basic tennents of biology (like evolution), and frankly have better things to do, like real research that brings about new cancer treatments, or describing organisms new to science, or, I don't know, creating something practical from past research that increases our ability to cope with this modern world.
If fundies and pseudo-scientists can't grok this, then fuck em. We have better things to do than pander to people still stuck in the middle ages, not from oppression or poverty, but out of ignorance.
Here's my theory and I can't prove it scientifically so ignore it as you will.
There is science and there is art and never the twain shall meet.
Artists get pissed off with scientists cos science kills the inspiration stone dead. Try writing a poem about feeling you can fly with a scientist yapping in your ear about how classic Newtonian physics expressly prohibits this characteristic and you'll get the picture. Art is magical and mystical and science is all about debunking that kind of thing.
Scientists get pissed off with artists because art is, by it's very nature, subjective and the mere mention of subjectivity is anathema to the scientist. Subjective leads to bad science and only objectivity has ever been any use to the human race. You can't prove beauty (although there was a theory it had to do with symmetry) You can't measure or quantify a sonnet.
I'm pretty sure this is the reason lab coats are white, instead of paisley pattern.
Philosophy is art. Never try to argue philosophy on scientific terms. By the same token - never try to prove science to a philosopher. Both will merely lead to great lulz and lulz are most definitely art.
Or you could just be a person like myself who knows when each is appropriate, and dabbles in both.
The argument that science and art can't mix is bullshit. They can. Most people just don't have the scientific rigour and artistic creativity at the same time to do it right. Leonardo Da Vinci is the obvious response.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:23:16 PM
The argument that science and art can't mix is bullshit.
Agreed, look at what they did with the Mandelbrot sets but, as a generalisation, it holds true.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:23:16 PM
The argument that science and art can't mix is bullshit.
Agreed, look at what they did with the Mandelbrot sets but, as a generalisation, it holds true.
I wouldn't have replied to this thread if it wasn't for one statement, something about energy turning into nothing.
Once you go down that path you've reached science, and I am well within my liability to pounce.
That's kinda my point. The thread is "do you believe in a soul. The minute science was brought into the mix it became a hiding to nowhere. We are left with the classic science v's philosophy stand-off.
Hilarious tho it is, it seems to get a lot of people pissed off.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:23:16 PM
The argument that science and art can't mix is bullshit.
Agreed, look at what they did with the Mandelbrot sets but, as a generalisation, it holds true.
I wouldn't have replied to this thread if it wasn't for one statement, something about energy turning into nothing.
Once you go down that path you've reached science, and I am well within my liability to pounce.
I visualize this as a siren next to your computer
which goes off when someone makes a statement that is not scientifically sound
and you cannot turn it off until you've said something condescendly pedagogical
:lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:23:16 PM
The argument that science and art can't mix is bullshit.
Agreed, look at what they did with the Mandelbrot sets but, as a generalisation, it holds true.
I wouldn't have replied to this thread if it wasn't for one statement, something about energy turning into nothing.
Once you go down that path you've reached science, and I am well within my liability to pounce.
I visualize this as a siren next to your computer
which goes off when someone makes a statement that is not scientifically sound
and you cannot turn it off until you've said something condescendly pedagogical
:lulz:
:lulz: More like a siren goes off in my head.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 11:38:48 AM
You'll get flamed all right. The only thing that reacts more zealously than a religious fanatic when their belief system is under attack is a scientist.
:backs slowly out of thread:
Suicide scientists FTW!@!
Quote from: bones on November 12, 2008, 11:13:11 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ! :eek:
Why the big circle-jerk about some idea of FP's not being SCIENCE?
This thread is called "Do you BELIEVE in a SOUL?", not "PROVE whether there's a soul with SCIENCE"
I can't even begin to cite references ITT, because it's way to long and circular and filled with BS, but it never occurred to me that the good Profit was making some scientific hypothesis with need for experimental evidence, he was just giving an idea, a perspective, and he even said it could be a lie. IMO KAI you have been totally unfair here, no need to have a cactus up your ass just because you've got a degree in biology and he suggested something that YOU think is unfounded crap. I think FP has held his own pretty well ITT, where you have been a little bit fanatical.
Keep the psychotic science pedantry out of a thread about belief.
Oh and "just thinking about it" is pretty much how Einstein came up with relativity. Philosophy or science?
Where has your "true-in-a" sense gone? :fnord:
bones,
-braced for the flames (all I wanted to know was how much it weighs :cry:)
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 02:56:11 AM
So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
FP framed his beliefs in pseudoscientific language, which makes them seem cheesy to a great many people (myself included) and easy to pick on.
The notion that a body's mass decreases is based on relatively poor scientific methodology, so there is no reason to see it as more than quack science. On top of that leap of faith, there is the rather awkward phrase "the energy becoming non-existent," followed by "Where that energy goes?" This is a contradiction, and the former statement violates untold hours of research that says quite definitively that energy does not just 'cease to exist.'
Trying to dismiss this as scientific arrogance is nothing short of insulting. Yes, scientists can be very fucking arrogant, and yes, science does overturn its own theories, but that is a pretty lame excuse for trying to pass off a theory that involves some sort of unidentified "energy" that is responsible for zombies as plausible.
So which is more arrogant: making ultimately tentative claims about the physical nature of reality based on empirical experiments and observation (often times, countless amounts of both), thus creating working theories that can be used to explain real phenomena? Or dismissing all that as "just a theory" and claiming that armchair intellectualism is equally likely to be true, because "everything is a possibility," resulting in theories that explain nothing and
terminate further inquiry rather than inviting it?
This line of thinking supports the belief that all evidence for evolution was fabricated by incredibly advanced aliens that operate in a physical dimension outside our own, and therefore we cannot see any evidence for them. Keep wanking away at the little postmodernist in your head and you can reason that it's impossible to objectively prove that this is not true.
But it's a
worthless hypothesis because it doesn't explain shit.
It's the exact same kind of thinking that leads to all that "quantum" bullshit out there.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 01:05:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:23:16 PM
The argument that science and art can't mix is bullshit.
Agreed, look at what they did with the Mandelbrot sets but, as a generalisation, it holds true.
I wouldn't have replied to this thread if it wasn't for one statement, something about energy turning into nothing.
Once you go down that path you've reached science, and I am well within my liability to pounce.
I visualize this as a siren next to your computer
which goes off when someone makes a statement that is not scientifically sound
and you cannot turn it off until you've said something condescendly pedagogical
:lulz:
:lulz: More like a siren goes off in my head.
I just had a mental picture of a scientific siren sitting on the rocks of Science, and singing to sailors on the Sea of Ignorance until their boats of retardedness crashed and sank against the shore.
Sweet merciful damn, I need to sleep.
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 02:05:11 PM
It's the exact same kind of thinking that leads to all that "quantum" bullshit out there.
It makes me sad that frootloops have co-opted the term "quantum" and reduced the perception of a valid line of scientific study to a fucking new-age cliche.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
No.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:
Regarding gravity, does anyone know
why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:
For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?
Just curious.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 12, 2008, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:
Regarding gravity, does anyone know why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:
For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?
Just curious.
Gravity, I think, is postulated to be the affect mass has on space-time.
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 02:05:11 PM
So which is more arrogant: making ultimately tentative claims about the physical nature of reality based on empirical experiments and observation (often times, countless amounts of both), thus creating working theories that can be used to explain real phenomena? Or dismissing all that as "just a theory" and claiming that armchair intellectualism is equally likely to be true, because "everything is a possibility," resulting in theories that explain nothing and terminate further inquiry rather than inviting it?
THIS.
Kai, this is for you.
(http://www.btwebworld.com/tradingpost/motorcycle.jpg)
Nothing like a dumb as shit fuckwit coming in here and blatantly ignoring some of the best established laws around. You do NOT fucking break the fucking laws of thermodynamics. Although, I wonder if I could sell FP a perpetual motion machine. He seems dumb enough to believe it might actually work.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that.
Neither will most scientists.
If information is found contradictory to a "fundamental law", the law will have to be thrown out and/or replaced.
Nothing is "proved" in science, but it's the closest we can come to it.
Quote from: Idem on November 12, 2008, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that.
Neither will most scientists.
If information is found contradictory to a "fundamental law", the law will have to be thrown out and/or replaced.
Nothing is "proved" in science, but it's the closest we can come to it.
This is exactly why we have tools like confidence intervals instead of absolute fact. Also, notice how Kai asked for EVIDENCE that the law of conservation of energy could be broken. Considering how long that law has been around without any problems being found in it, I doubt that an internet fuckwit is going to disprove it any time soon.
Quote from: Vene on November 12, 2008, 04:45:55 PM
Nothing like a dumb as shit fuckwit coming in here and blatantly blah blah blah
oh my god I know - the guy doesn't have a science degree
that makes him
less than you :fap:
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: Vene on November 12, 2008, 04:45:55 PM
Nothing like a dumb as shit fuckwit coming in here and blatantly blah blah blah
oh my god I know - the guy doesn't have a science degree
that makes him less than you
:fap:
I don't have one either. I try to make that clear. Sure, I'm working on one, but I don't have it yet. I'm not asking anybody here to be a scientist, I'm asking for people to fucking understand what something is before making fucking stupid statements.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: Vene on November 12, 2008, 04:45:55 PM
Nothing like a dumb as shit fuckwit coming in here and blatantly blah blah blah
oh my god I know - the guy doesn't have a science degree
that makes him less knowledgeable on scientific subjects than you
:fap:
fixed, for reductio ad absurdum.
Quote from: Vene on November 12, 2008, 04:45:55 PM
Kai, this is for you.
http://www.btwebworld.com/tradingpost/motorcycle.jpg
Nothing like a dumb as shit fuckwit coming in here and blatantly ignoring some of the best established laws around. You do NOT fucking break the fucking laws of thermodynamics. Although, I wonder if I could sell FP a perpetual motion machine. He seems dumb enough to believe it might actually work.
Thanks. I don't really think he is dumb as shit, btw, I just think he has brain addled himself so far from reality that hes encroaching on insanity.
I don't have time to explain basic physics or biology to the insane either.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
Nope. That's one of the benefits of being a Right Reverend.
But seriously, I chose to attack your post because it seemed based on pseudoscience. I didn't elaborate on the contradiction because I had to go to class. :kingmeh:
And of fucking course nothing is an immutable law. Gravity is examined just like any other phenomenon, but to talk about the "energy" of a person's living body persevering as a "soul," based on some claim that people lose 21 grams of mass after death, is more or less equivalent to postulating that we are all being controlled by the psionic powers of a godlike being living in Arizona because someone, somewhere, claims to have produced evidence that telepathy is possible.
It's a hell of a jump. Even if human bodies lose 21 grams after death (and I would have no objections to performing a series of rigorous tests to observe what happens immediately after death), it's pure mental fappery to claim that these 21 grams are soulstuff and therefore a living personality perseveres in some form after death. What evidence is there that it doesn't dissipate into the surrounding environment?
I don't hate wild speculation of this sort, but I have a personal distaste for it and I will strongly support my opinion that it's a waste of time in many cases. If there's one thing human minds are incredibly good at, it's making stuff up to explain phenomena that in turn requires no explanation (see: all mythology ever). I see no value in fabricating new "boxes of perspective" out of whole cloth for anything other than creative or artistic ends. Do it if you want, but don't expect me to see it as anything other than making shit up.
H.P. Lovecraft imagined creatures in his stories that could fly through the medium of "aether," in keeping with the science of the times. That doesn't mean he actually believed such creatures existed or tried to push the idea as anything other than a imaginative story.
Careful Cainad, Mexica Rain Gods don't like to be poked fun at. :lulz:
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 06:45:53 PM
Careful Cainad, Mexica Rain Gods don't like to be poked fun at. :lulz:
Bastard! You beat me to it :argh!:
I don't know what you're talki- *BRZZZZT* YEOW!
Guuuuhhhhhhh.... *drool*
*twitch*
You're absolutely right. I will make a monkey sacrifice of thirteen fucking idiots by midnight tonight.
Uncle Al Says:
You may write x for y in your equations, so long as you consistently write y for x. They remain unchanged—and unsolved. Is not all our knowledge" an example of this fallacy of writing one unknown for another, and then crowing like Peter's cock?
....
we have got values of y and z for x, and values of x and z for y—all our equations are indeterminate; all our knowledge is relative, even in a narrower sense than is usually implied by the statement. Under the whip of the clown God, our performing donkeys the philosophers and men of science run round and round in the ring; they have amusing tricks: they are cleverly trained; but they get nowhere.
I don't seem to be getting anywhere myself.
You can call it soul or energy or Ugghamaluotious... its still just 'the stuff that makes us work'. And if you choose to use labels like 'soul', you're accepting all the bullshit that's been tied to the label for thousands of years.
EOT
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?
There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:07:55 PM
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?
There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.
Of course some models are more useful than others... for some things. If I want to cure cancer or map the human genome, then I'd be using the models provided through scientific processes. My point was not, "science = same as crackheaded 'We Can Has Soul?' theory", but rather, we can use X or Y or Z or energy or Soul or NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL.
X, Y and Z are useful placeholders, but without context, they're not all that useful... energy is more useful, since it is a label that gives us some information. Soul is kinda useful, but it unfortunately brings in craploads of baggage from 2000+ years of neurological and neurolinguistic hallucinations.
NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL is useful, but only if I define it as "NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL : (noun) The stuff inside humans that powers their physical processes.
However, 'energy' although the most useful term here... is still just a label for X (or Y or Z... depending)
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:07:55 PM
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?
Holy war, live 24/7 on the teevee that the scientists invented!
Do not be hating on religion, without it the achievements of science would be useless :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 07:29:44 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:07:55 PM
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?
Holy war, live 24/7 on the teevee that the scientists invented!
Do not be hating on religion, without it the achievements of science would be useless :lulz:
And without science you monkeys would still be hitting each other with sticks.
(Also, I have no idea what I'm arguing anymore. But I don't care.)
Quote from: Vene on November 12, 2008, 07:32:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 07:29:44 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:07:55 PM
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?
Holy war, live 24/7 on the teevee that the scientists invented!
Do not be hating on religion, without it the achievements of science would be useless :lulz:
And without science we monkeys would still be hitting each other with sticks.
(Also, I have no idea what I'm arguing anymore. But I don't care.)
But they'd be holy sticks, though, with spirits and magic in 'em and stuff.
How do you expect us to beat the evil spirits out of sick people without sticks?
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 12, 2008, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:
Regarding gravity, does anyone know why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:
For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?
Just curious.
Gravity, I think, is postulated to be the affect mass has on space-time.
I find it amusing that when people start talking about how the correctness/erroneousness of scientific theories, they immediately jump to "Well, do you believe in gravity?"/"Well, except for gravity, but now EVOLUSHUN..." etc.
Because we have no fucking clue how gravity works. Einstein proved Newton wrong. Then Bohr proved Einstein wrong. (I'm using the word 'prove' loosely here, and Bohr to mean "some quantum physicist who I don't know.") Newton's theory works at low speeds and masses; Einstein works at high speeds and large masses, but fails at the quantum level. The current best theory involves a new fundamental particle that nobody has evidence for (yet*), except that if it existed we'd have a nice universal explanation for gravity.
*See the Large Hadron Collider.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 07:24:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:07:55 PM
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?
There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.
Of course some models are more useful than others... for some things. If I want to cure cancer or map the human genome, then I'd be using the models provided through scientific processes. My point was not, "science = same as crackheaded 'We Can Has Soul?' theory", but rather, we can use X or Y or Z or energy or Soul or NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL.
X, Y and Z are useful placeholders, but without context, they're not all that useful... energy is more useful, since it is a label that gives us some information. Soul is kinda useful, but it unfortunately brings in craploads of baggage from 2000+ years of neurological and neurolinguistic hallucinations.
NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL is useful, but only if I define it as "NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL : (noun) The stuff inside humans that powers their physical processes.
However, 'energy' although the most useful term here... is still just a label for X (or Y or Z... depending)
Energy even has a tendency to bring in baggage these days, what with the new age movements and whatnot.
The problem with scientific progress is that it requires people to look at the universe in new ways that often completely contradict their old paradigms. Progression hasn't removed the meaning in the universe, its still there, lots of it, if you choose to put it there. My own spirituality is no great secret, I do find great meaning in the universe. At the same time it doesn't contradict the reality of the universe as we know it through science. There was an excuse for the idea of a soul that separates from the body at death when we didn't understand that the mind was just another biologic process, that consciousness is a remarkable emergent process but it has a physiologic basis. Now there is no excuse.
Quote from: GA on November 12, 2008, 07:36:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 12, 2008, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:
Regarding gravity, does anyone know why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:
For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?
Just curious.
Gravity, I think, is postulated to be the affect mass has on space-time.
I find it amusing that when people start talking about how the correctness/erroneousness of scientific theories, they immediately jump to "Well, do you believe in gravity?"/"Well, except for gravity, but now EVOLUSHUN..." etc.
Because we have no fucking clue how gravity works. Einstein proved Newton wrong. Then Bohr proved Einstein wrong. (I'm using the word 'prove' loosely here, and Bohr to mean "some quantum physicist who I don't know.") Newton's theory works at low speeds and masses; Einstein works at high speeds and large masses, but fails at the quantum level. The current best theory involves a new fundamental particle that nobody has evidence for (yet*), except that if it existed we'd have a nice universal explanation for gravity.
*See the Large Hadron Collider.
Did you note I said "I think it is postulated as"? I don't know what gravity is, however, I will trust a physicists opinions on what gravity might be more than I would trust someone who hasn't studied physics at all. You wouldn't trust a barber to be your surgeon would you? If I want information on statistics, I'll go to a statistician. If I want information on chemistry I'll go to a chemist. My particular specialty is biology and though you may not think all my answers are right more of them will be closer to the facts than someone who has no knowledge of biology.
If I want to know about physics, I'll go ask my grandfather. :)
Quote from: GA on November 12, 2008, 07:36:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 12, 2008, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post. Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them. It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.
I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts". Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating. To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn. I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.
Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text. Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately. Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist. I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong. Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective? Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"
Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:
Regarding gravity, does anyone know why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:
For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?
Just curious.
Gravity, I think, is postulated to be the affect mass has on space-time.
I find it amusing that when people start talking about how the correctness/erroneousness of scientific theories, they immediately jump to "Well, do you believe in gravity?"/"Well, except for gravity, but now EVOLUSHUN..." etc.
Because we have no fucking clue how gravity works. Einstein proved Newton wrong. Then Bohr proved Einstein wrong. (I'm using the word 'prove' loosely here, and Bohr to mean "some quantum physicist who I don't know.") Newton's theory works at low speeds and masses; Einstein works at high speeds and large masses, but fails at the quantum level. The current best theory involves a new fundamental particle that nobody has evidence for (yet*), except that if it existed we'd have a nice universal explanation for gravity.
*See the Large Hadron Collider.
OSHI! Now you're just being crazy and claiming that there might be multiple ways to model a phenomena generally called 'gravity'!!! You can't do that. You have to just stick with one!!
:lulz:
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:37:43 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 07:24:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:07:55 PM
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?
There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.
Of course some models are more useful than others... for some things. If I want to cure cancer or map the human genome, then I'd be using the models provided through scientific processes. My point was not, "science = same as crackheaded 'We Can Has Soul?' theory", but rather, we can use X or Y or Z or energy or Soul or NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL.
X, Y and Z are useful placeholders, but without context, they're not all that useful... energy is more useful, since it is a label that gives us some information. Soul is kinda useful, but it unfortunately brings in craploads of baggage from 2000+ years of neurological and neurolinguistic hallucinations.
NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL is useful, but only if I define it as "NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL : (noun) The stuff inside humans that powers their physical processes.
However, 'energy' although the most useful term here... is still just a label for X (or Y or Z... depending)
Energy even has a tendency to bring in baggage these days, what with the new age movements and whatnot.
The problem with scientific progress is that it requires people to look at the universe in new ways that often completely contradict their old paradigms. Progression hasn't removed the meaning in the universe, its still there, lots of it, if you choose to put it there. My own spirituality is no great secret, I do find great meaning in the universe. At the same time it doesn't contradict the reality of the universe as we know it through science. There was an excuse for the idea of a soul that separates from the body at death when we didn't understand that the mind was just another biologic process, that consciousness is a remarkable emergent process but it has a physiologic basis. Now there is no excuse.
I don't disagree with you Kai. My point was that we CAN use X for Y (Soul for Energy/Calories/other sciencey word here), but its not really doing us all that much good. And yeah, energy has all kinds of tricky issues as well. (As we discussed in the Chi thread).
Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.
This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability
to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.
~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.
Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
:mittens:
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.
This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.
~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.
Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and looses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
Beautiful!
At the risk of starting the all you can eat bullshit buffet back up, can someone explain the barstool to FProfit?
:barstool:
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.
This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.
~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.
Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
Wow . . .
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 13, 2008, 04:19:57 PM
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.
This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.
~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.
Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
Wow . . .
And that's why I would have Telarus' baby... except for not having the necessary equipment to do so... :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 13, 2008, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 13, 2008, 04:19:57 PM
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.
This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.
~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.
Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
Wow . . .
And that's why I would have Telarus' baby... except for not having the necessary equipment to do so... :lulz:
Alas, if only that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, "Junior," were closer to reality . . .
My no-nonsense neo-pagan not-a-witch friend rolled into one of the local herbariums here in Portland. Upon chatting the cute, dreadlocked pagan behind the counter, said employee says, "Y'know, you really can't trust any of the doctors. Right?"
Stop.
Matrix pan to the right, as the scene flickers and revolves my friend finds herself thinking, "This chick is a fluffy idiot. Of course you have to trust some doctors, or the basis of society begins to breakdown as highly contagious diseases ravage large geographic areas. This person is stoooopid, and I don't need to take her seriously anymore."
Meanwhile, the cute register girl has merely made the semantic mistake of using language that references some imaginary state of 'Reality' where all medical professionals will cut your kidney out to sell on EbayChina, when what she really meant to express was: "Gee, some doctors I've gone to have refused to treat me like a human being, and that makes me Angry. Agree with me and we can hang out, 'cause our memes like each other and we can bitch about the medical profession, except this one cute doctor I saw..yadda, yadda, yadda."
Needless to say my friend left without buying anything, and she kept the grrrArghStoopidItHurts karma back home long enough to complain about it on liveJournal.
But public school and society has taught the cute register girl only to use language that references an external-objective reality and not internal-subjective space, so it goes through the USA2008 Filter and comes out, "Y'know, you really can't trust any of the doctors. Right?"
I figure nearly 40-60% of human miscommunication is due to the participants crunching incoming language signals through the wrong Grid, internal-emotional-I-space or external-nonsimultaneously~apprehended-objective-space. See, cute register girl was still making an accurate statement about part of Universe.... just the part in her brain-sack and meme-collection.
This is one of the most overlooked themes in NLP and most Occult systems, and 'is' the dualism embedded in our language that practices such as Zen sitting and walking meditations (and getting hit with sticks) tries to escape, if ever briefly, from.
WHERE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW
Meme Collections: Gotta Catch them All.
~Hi, I'm Telarus, and I'm a Zenarchist Discordian, Erisian Pope, Illuminatus Primi, and Commodore to the Floating Republic of Mu. This comes in handy as I lounge in New Alamut, discussing LULZ and SRS BSNS with my Discordian, Subgenious, Satanic, Thelemic, Technocculty, Occultnik, Non-Linear, Weird friends. We hit each other with sticks. We're not fluffy and we never wear fuzzy bunny ears, except when we do. We're all Absolutely Infallible, except when we're not. Welcome to the EndGame, Aftermath, 2008. War is a fiction, join a Faction.
I'm even more excited to come to portland now. :D
Quote from: Telarus on November 13, 2008, 06:37:15 PM
My no-nonsense neo-pagan not-a-witch friend rolled into one of the local herbariums here in Portland. Upon chatting the cute, dreadlocked pagan behind the counter, said employee says, "Y'know, you really can't trust any of the doctors. Right?"
Stop.
Matrix pan to the right, as the scene flickers and revolves my friend finds herself thinking, "This chick is a fluffy idiot. Of course you have to trust some doctors, or the basis of society begins to breakdown as highly contagious diseases ravage large geographic areas. This person is stoooopid, and I don't need to take her seriously anymore."
Meanwhile, the cute register girl has merely made the semantic mistake of using language that references some imaginary state of 'Reality' where all medical professionals will cut your kidney out to sell on EbayChina, when what she really meant to express was: "Gee, some doctors I've gone to have refused to treat me like a human being, and that makes me Angry. Agree with me and we can hang out, 'cause our memes like each other and we can bitch about the medical profession, except this one cute doctor I saw..yadda, yadda, yadda."
Needless to say my friend left without buying anything, and she kept the grrrArghStoopidItHurts karma back home long enough to complain about it on liveJournal.
But public school and society has taught the cute register girl only to use language that references an external-objective reality and not internal-subjective space, so it goes through the USA2008 Filter and comes out, "Y'know, you really can't trust any of the doctors. Right?"
I figure nearly 40-60% of human miscommunication is due to the participants crunching incoming language signals through the wrong Grid, internal-emotional-I-space or external-nonsimultaneously~apprehended-objective-space. See, cute register girl was still making an accurate statement about part of Universe.... just the part in her brain-sack and meme-collection.
This is one of the most overlooked themes in NLP and most Occult systems, and 'is' the dualism embedded in our language that practices such as Zen sitting and walking meditations (and getting hit with sticks) tries to escape, if ever briefly, from.
WHERE ARE YOU RIGHT NOW
Meme Collections: Gotta Catch them All.
~Hi, I'm Telarus, and I'm a Zenarchist Discordian, Erisian Pope, Illuminatus Primi, and Commodore to the Floating Republic of Mu. This comes in handy as I lounge in New Alamut, discussing LULZ and SRS BSNS with my Discordian, Subgenious, Satanic, Thelemic, Technocculty, Occultnik, Non-Linear, Weird friends. We hit each other with sticks. We're not fluffy and we never wear fuzzy bunny ears, except when we do. We're all Absolutely Infallible, except when we're not. Welcome to the EndGame, Aftermath, 2008. War is a fiction, join a Faction.
You kinda lost me at "Gotta Catch them All," but overall, mittens aplenty to you. This whole post is a good reminder of how language is really less of an objective, straightforward system of meaning transmission and more of a collective of situational and contextual placeholders for internal intellection.
Tangentially, it's weird that a lot of posts keep on heading back towards language, semantics, grammar, etc. recently. There's been the Language Responsibility Project thread, the Chi definition thread, this thread about souls . . . I think NaNoWriMo is getting people all psyched up on language or something.
Quote from: Telarus on November 13, 2008, 06:37:15 PMMeanwhile, the cute register girl has merely made the semantic mistake of using language that references some imaginary state of 'Reality' where all medical professionals will cut your kidney out to sell on EbayChina
A part of me died the day I realized that. I think it was also the day I changed my major.
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
I'd be willing to grant misunderstanding of terms here, if he didn't specifically state that the energy he was referring to was equivalent to mass. Coherence/Coordination/Signal isn't equivalent to mass, so it couldn't be the type of energy that he was talking about.
Only energy in the capacity-to-do-work sense has to be conserved. Asking were it went is a valid question.
Energy in the 'common' sense is not conserved. Demanding to know where it went is nonsensical, as it could just be destroyed.
Quote from: GA on November 13, 2008, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
I'd be willing to grant misunderstanding of terms here, if he didn't specifically state that the energy he was referring to was equivalent to mass. Coherence/Coordination/Signal isn't equivalent to mass, so it couldn't be the type of energy that he was talking about.
Only energy in the capacity-to-do-work sense has to be conserved. Asking were it went is a valid question.
Energy in the 'common' sense is not conserved. Demanding to know where it went is nonsensical, as it could just be destroyed.
You're assuming he wasn't stuck in a neurolinguistic hallucination ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 13, 2008, 09:25:57 PM
Quote from: GA on November 13, 2008, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
I'd be willing to grant misunderstanding of terms here, if he didn't specifically state that the energy he was referring to was equivalent to mass. Coherence/Coordination/Signal isn't equivalent to mass, so it couldn't be the type of energy that he was talking about.
Only energy in the capacity-to-do-work sense has to be conserved. Asking were it went is a valid question.
Energy in the 'common' sense is not conserved. Demanding to know where it went is nonsensical, as it could just be destroyed.
You're assuming he wasn't stuck in a neurolinguistic hallucination ;-)
If he's stuck in a neurolinguistic hallucination, then he's really better off not trying to use words at all now, is he?
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 02:05:11 PM
Quote from: bones on November 12, 2008, 11:13:11 AM
[...me being an asshole...]
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 02:56:11 AM
[...FP mixing his pseudoscience with bad zombie jokes and pissing everyone off... ]
FP framed his beliefs in pseudoscientific language, which makes them seem cheesy to a great many people (myself included) and easy to pick on.
The notion that a body's mass decreases is based on relatively poor scientific methodology, so there is no reason to see it as more than quack science. On top of that leap of faith, there is the rather awkward phrase "the energy becoming non-existent," followed by "Where that energy goes?" This is a contradiction, and the former statement violates untold hours of research that says quite definitively that energy does not just 'cease to exist.'
Trying to dismiss this as scientific arrogance is nothing short of insulting. Yes, scientists can be very fucking arrogant, and yes, science does overturn its own theories, but that is a pretty lame excuse for trying to pass off a theory that involves some sort of unidentified "energy" that is responsible for zombies as plausible.
So which is more arrogant: making ultimately tentative claims about the physical nature of reality based on empirical experiments and observation (often times, countless amounts of both), thus creating working theories that can be used to explain real phenomena? Or dismissing all that as "just a theory" and claiming that armchair intellectualism is equally likely to be true, because "everything is a possibility," resulting in theories that explain nothing and terminate further inquiry rather than inviting it?
This line of thinking supports the belief that all evidence for evolution was fabricated by incredibly advanced aliens that operate in a physical dimension outside our own, and therefore we cannot see any evidence for them. Keep wanking away at the little postmodernist in your head and you can reason that it's impossible to objectively prove that this is not true.
But it's a worthless hypothesis because it doesn't explain shit.
It's the exact same kind of thinking that leads to all that "quantum" bullshit out there.
I can see your point totally, and I do pretty much totally disagree with FP's original post, I just think it's better to leave a bit of room for miscommunication and even pseudoscience than to turn every disagreement and false claim into a flame-war.
Clearly this is why biologists tend not to bother debating creationists.
People of good scientific background are gonna know he's talking crap anyway, so flame such posts all you want, but do it for fun and lulz, not for the good of the gullible masses, who will always believe whatever they like the sound of.
I would advise all scientists to present a thoughtful, useful, and pleasant worldview instead of constantly spewing hate-filled bile about why we're all wrong. [/how Richard Dawkins made me resent atheism]
Not that any of this really matters in a discordian forum. I just thought it was a shame that a fun thread had turned into a hatefest. Seems better again now: A full round of mittens to telarus for his 'semantics' post.
bones,
- would rather everyone be a new-ageist retard than have to deal with everyone being violently pissed off all the time.
(sorry this is 4 pages late - ignore me)
Quote from: bones on November 14, 2008, 04:01:12 AM
Quote from: Cainad on November 12, 2008, 02:05:11 PM
Quote from: bones on November 12, 2008, 11:13:11 AM
[...me being an asshole...]
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 02:56:11 AM
[...FP mixing his pseudoscience with bad zombie jokes and pissing everyone off... ]
FP framed his beliefs in pseudoscientific language, which makes them seem cheesy to a great many people (myself included) and easy to pick on.
The notion that a body's mass decreases is based on relatively poor scientific methodology, so there is no reason to see it as more than quack science. On top of that leap of faith, there is the rather awkward phrase "the energy becoming non-existent," followed by "Where that energy goes?" This is a contradiction, and the former statement violates untold hours of research that says quite definitively that energy does not just 'cease to exist.'
Trying to dismiss this as scientific arrogance is nothing short of insulting. Yes, scientists can be very fucking arrogant, and yes, science does overturn its own theories, but that is a pretty lame excuse for trying to pass off a theory that involves some sort of unidentified "energy" that is responsible for zombies as plausible.
So which is more arrogant: making ultimately tentative claims about the physical nature of reality based on empirical experiments and observation (often times, countless amounts of both), thus creating working theories that can be used to explain real phenomena? Or dismissing all that as "just a theory" and claiming that armchair intellectualism is equally likely to be true, because "everything is a possibility," resulting in theories that explain nothing and terminate further inquiry rather than inviting it?
This line of thinking supports the belief that all evidence for evolution was fabricated by incredibly advanced aliens that operate in a physical dimension outside our own, and therefore we cannot see any evidence for them. Keep wanking away at the little postmodernist in your head and you can reason that it's impossible to objectively prove that this is not true.
But it's a worthless hypothesis because it doesn't explain shit.
It's the exact same kind of thinking that leads to all that "quantum" bullshit out there.
I can see your point totally, and I do pretty much totally disagree with FP's original post, I just think it's better to leave a bit of room for miscommunication and even pseudoscience than to turn every disagreement and false claim into a flame-war.
Clearly this is why biologists tend not to bother debating creationists.
People of good scientific background are gonna know he's talking crap anyway, so flame such posts all you want, but do it for fun and lulz, not for the good of the gullible masses, who will always believe whatever they like the sound of.
I would advise all scientists to present a thoughtful, useful, and pleasant worldview instead of constantly spewing hate-filled bile about why we're all wrong. [/how Richard Dawkins made me resent atheism]
Not that any of this really matters in a discordian forum. I just thought it was a shame that a fun thread had turned into a hatefest. Seems better again now: A full round of mittens to telarus for his 'semantics' post.
bones,
- would rather everyone be a new-ageist retard than have to deal with everyone being violently pissed off all the time.
(sorry this is 4 pages late - ignore me)
I give a shit, but on the other hand, I enjoy jumping on psuedoscience so much that I don't give a shit.
Plus, you put me in the same boat as Dawkins.
If I found myself in a boat with Dawkins I'd argue with him just for the hell of seeing that smarmy look drop off his face when I proved him wrong :evil:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 09:23:25 AM
If I found myself in a boat with Dawkins I'd argue with him just for the hell of seeing that smarmy look drop off his face when I proved him wrong :evil:
Sounds like a plan. :)
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 01:19:30 PM
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
thats a lie and you know it.
quantum proves nothing.
Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 01:19:30 PM
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!
As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.
No, really. You both
have and
don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.
Quote from: Cainad on November 14, 2008, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 01:19:30 PM
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!
As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.
No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.
Well, you both have a soul and don't have a soul... UNTIL YOU LOOK.
Then you have a dead cat in a box...
Quote from: Cainad on November 14, 2008, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 01:19:30 PM
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!
As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.
No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.
Aw, you let the cat out of the bag with that revelation, Cainad. :)
Get it? We were talking about quantum mechanics, and I referenced a cat, which is sort of a nod to Schrodinger . . .
Yeah, I'll shut up now.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 14, 2008, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: Cainad on November 14, 2008, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 01:19:30 PM
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!
As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.
No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.
Aw, you let the cat out of the bag with that revelation, Cainad. :)
Get it? We were talking about quantum mechanics, and I referenced a cat, which is sort of a nod to Schrodinger . . .
Yeah, I'll shut up now.
Rat already did it. However, you should know for future reference that when you leave a joke un-examined, it is simultaneously funny and unfunny. If you examine it, however, the Humor Police will teargas your house and say very rude things to you, thus making it appear as if you are weeping like a little sissy at their insults.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:43:24 PM
Quote from: Cainad on November 14, 2008, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 01:19:30 PM
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!
As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.
No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.
Well, you both have a soul and don't have a soul... UNTIL YOU LOOK.
Then you have a dead cat in a box...
You're telling me I have to learn the morse code for S.O.D.C.I.A.B now, in order to call for help in an emergency? :argh!:
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:43:24 PM
Quote from: Cainad on November 14, 2008, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 01:19:30 PM
Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!
As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.
No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.
Well, you both have a soul and don't have a soul... UNTIL YOU LOOK.
Then you have a dead cat in a box...
You're telling me I have to learn the morse code for S.O.D.C.I.A.B now, in order to call for help in an emergency? :argh!:
... / --- / -.. / -.-. / .. / .- / -...
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 10:05:42 PM
... / --- / -.. / -.-. / .. / .- / -...
Your-mamma-is-so-fat-that-
Hey! That's not the right message at all! :argh!:
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 14, 2008, 10:08:03 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 10:05:42 PM
... / --- / -.. / -.-. / .. / .- / -...
Your-mamma-is-so-fat-that-
Hey! That's not the right message at all! :argh!:
-.-- --- ..- .-. / -- --- -- -- .- / .. ... / ... --- / ..-. .- - / - .... .- - / -.-- --- ..- / -.-. .- -. -. --- - / -.. . ... -.-. .-. .. -... . / .... . .-. / .. -. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
To begin, understand you can't make me go away. It is not going to happen. I will just take a breather re-read everything while gathering ammo to return fire.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:26:59 AM
Which is more likely, the existence of a soul which we cannot measure, or the existence of physical laws which we can consistently measure?
By your statement here, you are saying if you cannot measure it, it does not exist? By that token then we should remove all forms of measurement than all the problems of the world would cease to exist as we could no longer quantify them.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:26:50 AM
There is a such thing as Occam's Razor.
As with arguments, Occam's Razor can be used to defend or condemn anything. It is all in the phrasing of the question, therefore it does not apply.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
This seems to be the real issue with your argument. You feel because I choose not to uphold these laws as fact that I hold no faith in them. This is clearly not the case. I place faith in these as much as I place faith in my chair to not break when I sit in it. However, I do not hold blind faith is said things. This is the same for my beliefs and my chair. I view them as having the possibility to fail me. You see I regularly kick my foundations to make sure they are still solid.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:43:18 AM
....
You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?
I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:59:00 AM
1) Have some sort of measurement, some sort of basal information, or from earlier experiments. The universe supplies more than enough of this.
2) Ask a question about said information. If you can't come up with any questions then you don't have enough curiosity to do scientific work.
3) Determine possible answers to said question. Formulate a hypothesis (which is not a guess, btw) based on previous data as an answer to said question.
4) Formulate and run an experiment to test said hypothesis.
5) Examine the results of the experiment, and determine whether the hypothesis is supported, or rejected.
repetio ad infinitum
If it doesn't follow the scientific method in some form, meaning, if it doesn't use physical data to form and test hypotheses through experiments that generate meaningful results which either support or reject said hypotheses, its not science.
And its not very realistic or useful either.
I have read through your explanation of the scientific method and the only real difference I could see is you feel there has to be a reason to ask the question.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:00:32 AM
Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
Because it can not be measured, it is useless. Obviously, this cannot be the case, otherwise no one would have taken the time to create measurements. They would have obviously considered everything useless and masturbatory. Ever consider there may still be things we simply have not created the measurements to quantify it yet?
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:52:01 PM
Thanks. I don't really think he is dumb as shit, btw, I just think he has brain addled himself so far from reality that hes encroaching on insanity.
I don't have time to explain basic physics or biology to the insane either.
Thank you for the complement, I guess you should look back on history at some of the greatest minds. Most were labeled as borderline insane by those around them.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 07:07:55 PM
Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine(weakened immune system), physics(most modern weaponry), and chemistry(Mustard gas flamethrowers, napalm and chemical showers), while the other lead to...what? (Guess you will never know.)
There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.
I tell you neither is more useful. The both have their uses and place. There are a few of us, however, who believe the two can co-exist and even come to help explain the other. Enjoy your box.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:06:57 AM
By your statement here, you are saying if you cannot measure it, it does not exist? By that token then we should remove all forms of measurement than all the problems of the world would cease to exist as we could no longer quantify them.
How about that if we can't measure it, we have NO reason to think it exists. Especially when the idea came from superstitious apes.
QuoteQuote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:26:50 AM
There is a such thing as Occam's Razor.
As with arguments, Occam's Razor can be used to defend or condemn anything. It is all in the phrasing of the question, therefore it does not apply.
You mean if it's misused. Just like any tool Occam's Razor can be misapplied, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. I can use a hammer to smash somebody's skull in, but that doesn't mean it's not a tool for construction.
QuoteThis seems to be the real issue with your argument. You feel because I choose not to uphold these laws as fact that I hold no faith in them. This is clearly not the case. I place faith in these as much as I place faith in my chair to not break when I sit in it. However, I do not hold blind faith is said things. This is the same for my beliefs and my chair. I view them as having the possibility to fail me. You see I regularly kick my foundations to make sure they are still solid.
What makes your belief solid? I don't think you've ever provided any reasoning for it. I can provide reasoning for why I don't think there is a soul. Mostly that thought processes can be explained using chemistry and invoking the supernatural doesn't actually add anything to the explanation.
QuoteI have read through your explanation of the scientific method and the only real difference I could see is you feel there has to be a reason to ask the question.
Then follow it and show us the data.
QuoteBecause it can not be measured, it is useless. Obviously, this cannot be the case, otherwise no one would have taken the time to create measurements. They would have obviously considered everything useless and masturbatory. Ever consider there may still be things we simply have not created the measurements to quantify it yet?
Burden of proof asswipe. Logically we don't assume that something exists until it is evidence (or measured).
QuoteI tell you neither is more useful. The both have their uses and place. There are a few of us, however, who believe the two can co-exist and even come to help explain the other. Enjoy your box.
When is your model useful? What has your model accomplished? There's a lot of bullshit out there and you seem to be spouting it.
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 12, 2008, 06:24:11 PM
Nope. That's one of the benefits of being a Right Reverend.
But seriously, I chose to attack your post because it seemed based on pseudoscience. I didn't elaborate on the contradiction because I had to go to class. :kingmeh:
And of fucking course nothing is an immutable law. Gravity is examined just like any other phenomenon, but to talk about the "energy" of a person's living body persevering as a "soul," based on some claim that people lose 21 grams of mass after death, is more or less equivalent to postulating that we are all being controlled by the psionic powers of a godlike being living in Arizona because someone, somewhere, claims to have produced evidence that telepathy is possible.
It's a hell of a jump. Even if human bodies lose 21 grams after death (and I would have no objections to performing a series of rigorous tests to observe what happens immediately after death), it's pure mental fappery to claim that these 21 grams are soulstuff and therefore a living personality perseveres in some form after death. What evidence is there that it doesn't dissipate into the surrounding environment?
I don't hate wild speculation of this sort, but I have a personal distaste for it and I will strongly support my opinion that it's a waste of time in many cases. If there's one thing human minds are incredibly good at, it's making stuff up to explain phenomena that in turn requires no explanation (see: all mythology ever). I see no value in fabricating new "boxes of perspective" out of whole cloth for anything other than creative or artistic ends. Do it if you want, but don't expect me to see it as anything other than making shit up.
H.P. Lovecraft imagined creatures in his stories that could fly through the medium of "aether," in keeping with the science of the times. That doesn't mean he actually believed such creatures existed or tried to push the idea as anything other than a imaginative story.
See here is where the confusion in what I stated seems to be getting to people. I stated I believe there is a soul, but it was not until far along that it was really dragged into the thought. I was speculating that the loss could a loss of potential and kinetic energy. If the body does lose mass upon death, what is it and where does it go? Is it the human soul, honestly, I don't care. Any finding in this will neither confirm nor disprove what I believe. If I was able to I would fund your tests simply so we could get a more credible answer. We sure as hell have more ways of measuring things now-a-days than back in 1907. Perhaps one of these new methods can shred some illumination on the whole thing. I would prefer some more credible and less public than the Mythbusters. I have seen far too many of their experiments have flaws at a base level even with my limited knowledge to have faith they would get it right.
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 01:19:54 AM
How about that if we can't measure it, we have NO reason to think it exists. Especially when the idea came from superstitious apes.
If we have no reason to think things exist without measurements, then why did we even create the measurements?
You mean if it's misused. Just like any tool Occam's Razor can be misapplied, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. I can use a hammer to smash somebody's skull in, but that doesn't mean it's not a tool for construction.
A hammer which is essentially a type of club was used was a tool of destruction long before being used as a tool of construction. Either way, it is merely a tool and not a means to justify its use.
What makes your belief solid? I don't think you've ever provided any reasoning for it. I can provide reasoning for why I don't think there is a soul. Mostly that thought processes can be explained using chemistry and invoking the supernatural doesn't actually add anything to the explanation.
My belief is solid because I continue to hold my belief despite people telling I am a fool or an idiot or insane. It is solid as it has yet to ever fail me. Even in times of torment and pain, it has remained steadfast and resolute. If I told you what I have experienced and the things I have seen and encountered you would still refuse to accept such a belief until it was experienced first hand. So stop asking for proof. There is a reason it is called belief.
Then follow it and show us the data.
Refer to previous statement
Burden of proof asswipe. Logically we don't assume that something exists until it is evidence (or measured).
Does the color red cease to exist simply because there are people blind to it?
When is your model useful? What has your model accomplished? There's a lot of bullshit out there and you seem to be spouting it.
When is my model useful? Really, you cannot see the possible use of using the scientific to help explain the spiritual? Hmmm....what could possibility be a benefit to having a unified answer to some of the most heated question on the face of this planet? If you can't see the potential of using a structured scientific platform to bring order to the chaos which is religion than by all means, ignore it.
What the hell just happened? You are using the exact same reasoning of creationists and fundies. I have no desire to deal with the fundamentalist attitude anymore. Well, that's a lie, I still am compelled to point out your hypocrisy.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:06:57 AMThis seems to be the real issue with your argument. You feel because I choose not to uphold these laws as fact that I hold no faith in them. This is clearly not the case. I place faith in these as much as I place faith in my chair to not break when I sit in it. However, I do not hold blind faith is said things. This is the same for my beliefs and my chair. I view them as having the possibility to fail me. You see I regularly kick my foundations to make sure they are still solid.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:38:49 AM
My belief is solid because I continue to hold my belief despite people telling I am a fool or an idiot or insane. It is solid as it has yet to ever fail me. Even in times of torment and pain, it has remained steadfast and resolute. If I told you what I have experienced and the things I have seen and encountered you would still refuse to accept such a belief until it was experienced first hand. So stop asking for proof. There is a reason it is called belief.
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 01:44:42 AM
What the hell just happened? You are using the exact same reasoning of creationists and fundies. I have no desire to deal with the fundamentalist attitude anymore. Well, that's a lie, I still am compelled to point out your hypocrisy.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:06:57 AMThis seems to be the real issue with your argument. You feel because I choose not to uphold these laws as fact that I hold no faith in them. This is clearly not the case. I place faith in these as much as I place faith in my chair to not break when I sit in it. However, I do not hold blind faith is said things. This is the same for my beliefs and my chair. I view them as having the possibility to fail me. You see I regularly kick my foundations to make sure they are still solid.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:38:49 AM
My belief is solid because I continue to hold my belief despite people telling I am a fool or an idiot or insane. It is solid as it has yet to ever fail me. Even in times of torment and pain, it has remained steadfast and resolute. If I told you what I have experienced and the things I have seen and encountered you would still refuse to accept such a belief until it was experienced first hand. So stop asking for proof. There is a reason it is called belief.
What happened is you made an error in judgment and labeled me a fundie. There is nothing fundamental about what I believe. Also if you read the statement prior to the one you highlighted, you will see I understand the futility of trying to
tell you these things. You require proof which I cannot simply hand you through the internet, and even if I could, you would not accept such proof. You would need to experience it for yourself. There is nothing hypocritical about my statement.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:50:31 AM
You require proof which I cannot simply hand you through the internet, and even if I could, you would not accept such proof. You would need to experience it for yourself. There is nothing hypocritical about my statement.
Try me fucker. You are repeating fundie's arguments word for motherfucking word with I ask for evidence.
(Yep, I definitely lied. I don't know how to stop.)
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 01:57:49 AM
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:50:31 AM
You require proof which I cannot simply hand you through the internet, and even if I could, you would not accept such proof. You would need to experience it for yourself. There is nothing hypocritical about my statement.
Try me fucker. You are repeating fundie's arguments word for motherfucking word with I ask for evidence.
(Yep, I definitely lied. I don't know how to stop.)
You want my life story?
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 02:04:40 AM
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 01:57:49 AM
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:50:31 AM
You require proof which I cannot simply hand you through the internet, and even if I could, you would not accept such proof. You would need to experience it for yourself. There is nothing hypocritical about my statement.
Try me fucker. You are repeating fundie's arguments word for motherfucking word with I ask for evidence.
(Yep, I definitely lied. I don't know how to stop.)
You want my life story?
It's nothing to do with you
being a fundie, which you obviously aren't. It's to do with you using the rhetoric that fundies have become very adept at slinging.
I can't give you evidence but I can point you in the direction of a PROCEDURE, similar to one you would find in any type of scientific experiemnt.
the book is called LIBER ABA. have at it Mr. rationals.
i believe my soul is hated by many and loved by few.
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 15, 2008, 02:08:04 AM
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 02:04:40 AM
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 01:57:49 AM
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:50:31 AM
You require proof which I cannot simply hand you through the internet, and even if I could, you would not accept such proof. You would need to experience it for yourself. There is nothing hypocritical about my statement.
Try me fucker. You are repeating fundie's arguments word for motherfucking word with I ask for evidence.
(Yep, I definitely lied. I don't know how to stop.)
You want my life story?
It's nothing to do with you being a fundie, which you obviously aren't. It's to do with you using the rhetoric that fundies have become very adept at slinging.
Ah, I see. My stating that I understand no matter what I show it will be rebuked is a fundie aspect. I try to avoid them as much as I can. They tend to give me more crap than any scientist. Personally, I'll tell you my story if you really want to hear it, but if all that will come of it is ridicule then it is really a waste of my time and yours.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 02:20:25 AM
Personally, I'll tell you my story if you really want to hear it, but if all that will come of it is ridicule then it is really a waste of my time and yours.
I'll promise to listen with an open mind. I don't promise I won't ridicule it if I think it's stupid.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:38:49 AM
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 01:19:54 AM
How about that if we can't measure it, we have NO reason to think it exists. Especially when the idea came from superstitious apes.
If we have no reason to think things exist without measurements, then why did we even create the measurements?
You mean if it's misused. Just like any tool Occam's Razor can be misapplied, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. I can use a hammer to smash somebody's skull in, but that doesn't mean it's not a tool for construction.
A hammer which is essentially a type of club was used was a tool of destruction long before being used as a tool of construction. Either way, it is merely a tool and not a means to justify its use.
What makes your belief solid? I don't think you've ever provided any reasoning for it. I can provide reasoning for why I don't think there is a soul. Mostly that thought processes can be explained using chemistry and invoking the supernatural doesn't actually add anything to the explanation.
My belief is solid because I continue to hold my belief despite people telling I am a fool or an idiot or insane. It is solid as it has yet to ever fail me. Even in times of torment and pain, it has remained steadfast and resolute. If I told you what I have experienced and the things I have seen and encountered you would still refuse to accept such a belief until it was experienced first hand. So stop asking for proof. There is a reason it is called belief.
Then follow it and show us the data.
Refer to previous statement
Burden of proof asswipe. Logically we don't assume that something exists until it is evidence (or measured).
Does the color red cease to exist simply because there are people blind to it?
When is your model useful? What has your model accomplished? There's a lot of bullshit out there and you seem to be spouting it.
When is my model useful? Really, you cannot see the possible use of using the scientific to help explain the spiritual? Hmmm....what could possibility be a benefit to having a unified answer to some of the most heated question on the face of this planet? If you can't see the potential of using a structured scientific platform to bring order to the chaos which is religion than by all means, ignore it.
The problem isn't if your model is or is not useful.
The fact is that as currently expressed by you, your model is
INCOHERENT.
On the true/false/meaningless map, all of the dots are clustered around MEANINGLESS, but you think you can get to 'truth' by jumping from dot to dot.
Thus, your clinging to the model (or appearing to), without examining why your model is INCOHERENT, is the definition of Fundamentalism used upthread.
(Not that the beliefs are 'fundamental' to your worldview, but that
YOU CANNOT CRITICALLY EXAMINE THEM.)
We're not ridiculing your experiences or your model of them, simply commenting on how well you can communicate them.
Namaste'
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 02:22:35 AM
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 02:20:25 AM
Personally, I'll tell you my story if you really want to hear it, but if all that will come of it is ridicule then it is really a waste of my time and yours.
I'll promise to listen with an open mind. I don't promise I won't ridicule it if I think it's stupid.
Very well.
It will take me a moment to write it and get the semantics in line.
Annoying Spider Guy:
Functionally, what's the difference between something that cannot be observed (directly or indirectly) and something that doesn't exist?
To clarify, when I say "cannot be observed" I mean that it would be impossible for equipment to exist that could observe such a thing, or to observe any effects of such a thing. I'm counting the H. Sapiens' obervational and cognitive organs as equipment for this purpose.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:06:57 AM
However, I do not hold blind faith is said things. This is the same for my beliefs and my chair. I view them as having the possibility to fail me. You see I regularly kick my foundations to make sure they are still solid.
We kick foundations too. Explain to us how you kick your foundation to check for solidity - I suspect you missed a few weak spots on your kicking spree, and your entire building is rotten because of it. If we see that your kicking method is solid, we'll believe that your foundations are solid; otherwise we're forced to assume that you went and believed everything you read labeled "Science Fiction and Fantasy."
For that matter, could you repeat your assertion about the existence of something referred to as a 'soul'? I think I misunderstood you the first time. For clarity, include working definitions of all relevant terms.
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 02:41:51 AM
Quote from: Vene on November 15, 2008, 02:22:35 AM
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 02:20:25 AM
Personally, I'll tell you my story if you really want to hear it, but if all that will come of it is ridicule then it is really a waste of my time and yours.
I'll promise to listen with an open mind. I don't promise I won't ridicule it if I think it's stupid.
Very well.
It will take me a moment to write it and get the semantics in line.
I also am interested.
what's the point of a shoe if you dont have a soul?
oh sorry, i thought this was the one sentence meme bomb thread
Quote from: bones on November 15, 2008, 03:30:40 AM
what's the point of a shoe if you dont have a soul?
oh sorry, i thought this was the one sentence meme bomb thread
:lol:
Also, this thread reminds me of a very profound and important post made on POEE.co.uk a long-ass time ago:
Quote from: http://www.poee.co.uk/boards/index.php?topic=1796.msg18586#msg18586Confucious say large gulf exists between having an open mind and weaving everything you fucking read into an ever widening mesh of bullshit, covering up the inconsistencies with what you arrogantly think of as reasoning skills.
^D/N/T
also succinctly put by my grandfather quite often:
"have and open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out"
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 08, 2008, 11:26:40 PM
Hoopla's answer, "Semantics," strikes me as something of a cop-out to be honest. It sounds like you're saying you believe in a soul but don't want to call it that. Which, if you'll forgive me for saying, sounds pretty damned silly.
What's wrong with silly?
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
Kai, I love you but this is pretty harsh.
All he was saying is that humans are not infallible, so there is no way our ideas and concepts are infallible. It's impossible. Do the physical laws work? Yes, or we would have tossed out that model and found another model more useful. But its still just a model. We know the laws work here on Planet Mudball, and we have reasonable proof that the laws work in the space around Planet Mudball, beyond that we know nothing.
Lack of measurable proof of any existence beyond death is not proof against existence beyond death. You can't measure art, or one's appreciation of art, but I think most of us would agree it exists.
It's an unanswerable -and therefor pretty much meaningless- argument, and only leads to second circuit nonsense.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:43:18 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 12, 2008, 03:20:12 AM
Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?
Yup, I certainly do. Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying." Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know. This is speculation. The question was asked, I gave you my answer. Not my fault, YOU don't like it.
It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 03:26:05 AM
It doesn't mean it is not possible. It does not make it true or false. It just is.
That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?
Does it have to be useful?
Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.
That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation. It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge. We will never truly know until it is experienced. Until then..... :fap:
There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.
What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.
You're a fucking idiot.
That's not what I said at all. It is all fine and dandy to base measurements upon measurements, but we must be prepared for the possibility of those measurements being wrong. If say for instance down the proverbial road we find that 1+1 does not equate to two, then everything we have based on that is now drivel. We could be wrong. I am at least willing to admit it. I am monkey. I do not know the entirety of the universe. What I do know is all of the other monkeys who are talking are in the same boat as I am. They could be wrong as well. Then again they might have gotten lucky and be right. Hooray if that is the case, but I can't count it an an absolute. I can put some faith into it. I can believe they are right, but deep down it is still only a belief and not a fact.
....
You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?
I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.
It is starting to sound like religion at this point.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:00:32 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:53:04 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:50:36 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:45:34 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:39:56 AM
Quote from: False Profit on November 12, 2008, 04:35:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.
Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them. It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be. Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact. I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion.
My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat. We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat. My point is still valid in that area.
As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation. Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine. We even jump start them when they stop running.
Or I could still be lying.
BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best. All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.
A) Are you suggesting we do away with peer review? REAL bright ideal there. Also, lets go back to bloodletting and exorcisms!
B) Yes...we've already established that heat is photons within the infrared range, and that it is also very measurable. Are you suggesting heat = soul?
C) No, it doesn't. Come back to me when you have a degree in biology, or at least some biological background under your belt.
No, I never said to get rid of it, just stop taking it as fact and understand we could all be wrong.
I never suggested the heat was a soul. I am suggesting that the energy dispersed as heat upon the body's death could or might be a soul.
So....it would follow then that all heat is soul matter? Or are you just completely inconsistent like that?
Or, maybe the soul moves about as heat like other forms of energy? Or the soul is composed the same energy that is found in everything? Hmmmm.....these concepts sound familiar.
Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.
:|
QuoteIf you can master nonsense as well as you have already learned to master sense, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.
QuoteIf you can master nonscience as well as you have already learned to master science, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.
:lulz:
Quote from: Spyder Revanent on November 15, 2008, 01:06:57 AM
To begin, understand you can't make me go away. It is not going to happen.
The arguments in this thread are starting to become like an intellectual herpes: the same conditions recurring with little or no change
Quote from: bones on November 15, 2008, 03:30:40 AM
what's the point of a shoe if you dont have a soul?
oh sorry, i thought this was the one sentence meme bomb thread
Also, this post made me guffaw.
Quote from: BAWHEED on November 16, 2008, 12:32:27 AM
It is starting to sound like religion at this point.
I don't believe that it is possible to discuss the soul without discussing religion.
Weather a person has a soul or not in life is largely irrelevant- it is what happens to that 'soul' after death that gives it meaning at all. And when you talk about life (or some form of existence) after death, that means you're talking about religion.
QuoteIf you can master nonscience as well as you have already learned to master science, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.
:potd:
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 20, 2008, 06:39:15 PM
Quote from: BAWHEED on November 16, 2008, 12:32:27 AM
It is starting to sound like religion at this point.
I don't believe that it is possible to discuss the soul without discussing religion.
Weather a person has a soul or not in life is largely irrelevant- it is what happens to that 'soul' after death that gives it meaning at all. And when you talk about life (or some form of existence) after death, that means you're talking about religion.
I meant science was starting to sound like a religion at that point.
Quote from: BAWHEED on November 20, 2008, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 20, 2008, 06:39:15 PM
Quote from: BAWHEED on November 16, 2008, 12:32:27 AM
It is starting to sound like religion at this point.
I don't believe that it is possible to discuss the soul without discussing religion.
Weather a person has a soul or not in life is largely irrelevant- it is what happens to that 'soul' after death that gives it meaning at all. And when you talk about life (or some form of existence) after death, that means you're talking about religion.
I meant science was starting to sound like a religion at that point.
You WILL convert and follow the teaching of Newton, Bohr, and Darwin or we will flay the flesh from your bones.
I think that this entire conversation is skidding off into unnecessary areas of funk. I happened to pick up Book Four, by Crowley, the other night on my way to bed. In rereading the 'Preliminary Remarks', I found what may be a decent rejoinder to this thread. I'll cut paste a few points here, but the whole thing is a good read.
Quote from: Uncle AlEXISTENCE, as we know it, is full of sorrow. To mention only one minor point: every man is a condemned criminal, only he does not know the date of his execution. This is unpleasant for every man. Consequently every man does everything possible to postpone the date, and would sacrifice anything that he has if he could reverse the sentence.
Practically all religions and all philosophies have started thus crudely, by promising their adherents some such reward as immortality.
This seems as decent a statement as can be made on the topic. Humans appear to die, humans don't seem to like the idea of dying and mosbunal religions offer them some sort of option.
Quote from: Uncle AlNo religion has failed hitherto by not promising enough; the present breaking up of all religions is due to the fact that people have asked to see the securities. Men have even renounced the important material advantages which a well-organized religion may confer upon a State, rather than acquiesce in fraud or falsehood, or even in any system which, if not proved guilty, is at least unable to demonstrate its innocence.
Being more or less bankrupt, the best thing that we can do is to attack the problem afresh without preconceived ideas. Let us begin by doubting every statement. Let us find a way of subjecting every statement to the test of experiment. Is there any truth at all in the claims of various religions? Let us examine the question.
Our original difficulty will be due to the enormous wealth of our material. To enter into a critical examination of all systems would be an unending task; the cloud of witnesses is too great. Now each religion is equally positive; and each demands faith. This we refuse in the absence of positive proof. But we may usefully inquire whether there is not any one thing upon which all religions have agreed: for, if so, it seems possible that it may be worthy of really thorough consideration.
It is certainly not to be found in dogma. Even so simple an idea as that of a supreme and eternal being is denied by a third of the human race. Legends of miracle are perhaps universal, but these, in the absence of demonstrative proof, are repugnant to common sense.
Now I see this as a really great practical example of Model Agnosticism in action. Each religion uses some specific model, maybe it has a Buddha nature, or Kali, or Original Sin or Theatens... but maybe, if they at all reflect some aspect of reality... maybe they all have a common point. Crowley seemed to think so. This next bit covers what he saw as similar:
Quote from: Uncle AlThere is, however, one form of miracle which certainly happens, the influence of the genius. There is no known analogy in Nature. One cannot even think of a "super-dog" transforming the world of dogs, whereas in the history of mankind this happens with regularity and frequency. Now here are three "super-men," all at loggerheads. What is there in common between Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed? Is there any one point upon which all three are in accord?
No point of doctrine, no point of ethics, no theory of a "hereafter" do they share, and yet in the history of their lives we find one identity amid many diversities.
Buddha was born a Prince, and died a beggar.
Mohammed was born a beggar, and died a Prince.
Christ remained obscure until many years after his death.
Elaborate lives of each have been written by devotees, and there is one thing common to all three -- an omission. We hear nothing of Christ between the ages of twelve and thirty. Mohammed disappeared into a cave. Buddha left his palace, and went for a long while into the desert.
Each of them, perfectly silent up to the time of the disappearance, came back and immediately began to preach a new law.
After examining some other notable 'teachers he concludes:
QuoteMaking every possible deduction for fable and myth, we get this one coincidence. A nobody goes away, and comes back a somebody. This is not to be explained in any of the ordinary ways.
....
We have only the accounts given by the men themselves.
It would be very remarkable should we find that these accounts agree.
Of the great teachers we have mentioned Christ is silent; the other four tell us something; some more, some less.
Buddha goes into details too elaborate to enter upon in this place; but the gist of it is that in one way or another he got hold of the secret force of the World and mastered it.
Of St. Paul's experiences, we have nothing but a casual illusion to his having been "caught up into Heaven, and seen and heard things of which it was not lawful to speak."
Mohammed speaks crudely of his having been "visited by the Angel Gabriel," who communicated things from "God."
Moses says that he "beheld God."
Diverse as these statements are at first sight, all agree in announcing an experience of the class which fifty years ago would have been called supernatural, to-day may be called spiritual, and fifty years hence will have a proper name based on an understanding of the phenomenon which occurred.
Theorists have not been at a loss to explain; but they differ.
The Mohammedan insists that God is, and did really send Gabriel with messages for Mohammed: but all others contradict him. And from the nature of the case proof is impossible.
The lack of proof has been so severely felt by Christianity (and in a much less degree by Islam) that fresh miracles have been manufactured almost daily to support the tottering structure. Modern thought, rejecting these miracles, has adopted theories involving epilepsy and madness. As if organization could spring from disorganization! Even if epilepsy were the cause of these great movements which have caused civilization after civilization to arise from barbarism, it would merely form an argument for cultivating epilepsy.
Of course great men will never conform with the standards of little men, and he whose mission it is to overturn the world can hardly escape the title of revolutionary. The fads of a period always furnish terms of abuse. The fad of Caiaphas was Judaism, and the Pharisees told him that Christ "blasphemed." Pilate was a loyal Roman; to him they accused Christ of "sedition." When the Pope had all power it was necessary to prove an enemy a "heretic." Advancing to-day towards a medical oligarchy, we try to prove that our opponents are "insane," and (in a Puritan country) to attack their "morals." We should then avoid all rhetoric, and try to investigate with perfect freedom from bias the phenomena which occurred to these great leaders of mankind.
There is no difficulty in our assuming that these men themselves did not understand clearly what happened to them. The only one who explains his system thoroughly is Buddha, and Buddha is the only one that is not dogmatic. We may also suppose that the others thought it inadvisable to explain too clearly to their followers; St. Paul evidently took this line.
And now we start to see some Reality Grid/BiP influence in Crowley's view. What the Thinker thought (Gabriel/YHVH/Power of the World etc) was proved by the Prover (Well, that was a weird experience, must have been Gabriel/YHVH/Power of the World!).
Example:
Quote
something happens whose nature may form the subject of a further discussion later on. For the moment let it suffice to say that this consciousness of the Ego and the non-Ego, the seer and the thing seen, the knower and the thing known, is blotted out.
There is usually an intense light, an intense sound, and a feeling of such overwhelming bliss that the resources of language have been exhausted again and again in the attempt to describe it.
It is an absolute knock-out blow to the mind. It is so vivid and tremendous that those who experience it are in the gravest danger of losing all sense of proportion.
By its light all other events of life are as darkness. Owing to this, people have utterly failed to analyse it or to estimate it. They are accurate enough in saying that, compared with this, all human life is absolutely dross; but they go further, and go wrong. They argue that "since this is that which transcends the terrestrial, it must be celestial." One of the tendencies in their minds has been the hope of a heaven such as their parents and teachers have described, or such as they have themselves pictured; and, without the slightest grounds for saying so, they make the assumption "This is That."
And their Reality Grid kicks in...
Quote
In the Bhagavadgita a vision of this class is naturally attributed to the apparation of Vishnu, who was the local god of the period.
Anna Kingsford, who had dabbled in Hebrew mysticism, and was a feminist, got an almost identical vision; but called the "divine" figure which she saw alternately "Adonai" and "Maria."
....
Somehow or another his [Muhammad's] phenomenon happened in his mind. More ignorant than Anna Kingsford, though, fortunately, more moral, he connected it with the story of the "Annunciation," which he had undoubtedly heard in his boyhood, and said "Gabriel appeared to me." But in spite of his ignorance, his total misconception of the truth, the power of the vision was such that he was enabled to persist through the usual persecution, and founded a religion to which even to-day one man in every eight belongs.
The history of Christianity shows precisely the same remarkable fact. Jesus Christ was brought up on the fables of the "Old Testament," and so was compelled to ascribe his experiences to "Jehovah," although his gentle spirit could have had nothing in common with the monster who was always commanding the rape of virgins and the murder of little children, and whose rites were then, and still are, celebrated by human sacrifice.
Similarly the visions of Joan of Arc were entirely Christian; but she, like all the others we have mentioned, found somewhere the force to do great things. Of course, it may be said that there is a fallacy in the argument; it may be true that all these great people "saw God," but it does not follow that every one who "sees God" will do great things.
Now, that's probably tl;dr for most people, if you're interested in the whole book, check it out http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/aba1.htm
However, I think Crowley's view here may be the most useful view to take. Almost every religion has claimed something about eternal life in some sense, trying to prove or disprove any particular dogma about the concept seems insane since no two seem to agree... but, what if we can find something that they hold in common, then examine that?
Seems like a far better option to me than arguing about how much a soul weighs or what religion or what scientific fact is or is not True.
Humans tend to see reality through a glass, darkly. So maybe they saw a smudge and called it soul, when it was just a smudge on the glass... or maybe they saw something and called it soul... because the glass is tinted by their BiP.
Also, I think that Book Four does a fine job of disproving any claim that Crowley believed in God in any normal sense. In fact, I think Dawkins would maybe do a better job writing his philosophy if he read some Crowley ;-)
the soul, or our idea of it, comes from awareness of our subjectivity.
Edited for active voice.
Now thats a thought.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on November 07, 2008, 01:58:42 PM
Coincidentally, I've never believed in James Brown either
:crankey:
I believe in the soul. I do not believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy. I believe we are physical beings animated and motivated by a spiritual essence.
I do not anticipate the existence of a soul because nothing I have observed would be explainable by such a thing, and any kind of metaphysical meaningfulness to life seems conceited and arbitrary.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 06, 2010, 11:03:22 PM
I believe in the soul. I do not believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy. I believe we are physical beings animated and motivated by a spiritual essence.
This is close to what I believe.
This thread reminds me of Belief in Belief, whereby people say "I believe in" not when they anticipate reality, but when they anticipate it is /virtuous/ to anticipate something.
In other words, when someone says "I believe in a soul", they probably don't actually anticipate coming face to face with anything resembling a soul ever, or any evidence thereof.
If they /did/, they would probably just say, "There are souls".
So no, I don't believe in a soul, I don't anticipate it being virtuous of me to anticipate the existence of souls. Nor are there any such things as souls.
I think there are souls, but the soul is not an animating force, and I am definitely not a physical manifestation of that soul. The mind and body are both physical in origin, your soul is only meant to kick in after the body gives up.
I believe this is one of those questions for people who have time to waste in their day to day life.
I drink Kona coffee mainly for the mana (I literally have a craving for molecules from the hawaiian volcanic chain). The caffeine is a secondary concern.
If I could get my hands on another bag of Kona coffee, I would totally ignore the terrible things coffee does to me these days. I fucking love that stuff.
Re: soul - I have decided this is another issue I just don't care about. Either I'll find out after I bite the dust, or I won't, and it won't have mattered either way.
Quote from: Telarus on October 07, 2010, 03:03:20 AM
I drink Kona coffee mainly for the mana (I literally have a craving for molecules from the hawaiian volcanic chain). The caffeine is a secondary concern.
:lulz:
:spit:
Quote from: Hover Cat on October 07, 2010, 03:12:58 AM
If I could get my hands on another bag of Kona coffee, I would totally ignore the terrible things coffee does to me these days. I fucking love that stuff.
Re: soul - I have decided this is another issue I just don't care about. Either I'll find out after I bite the dust, or I won't, and it won't have mattered either way.
You should give Ethiopian Yirgacheffe a try, if you haven't. It's fucking delicious.
It is worth eight hours of misery after a cup? If it is, I'll totally keep an eye out. Kona is, certainly.
I would accept souls as defined:
"The memeplex that originates from a given entity."
i believe in the idea of a soul.
No, seriously. What the fuck is a "soul"? :?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 07, 2010, 07:40:49 AM
No, seriously. What the fuck is a "soul"? :?
I don't think anyone's satisfactorily answered that yet. I tried, but I doubt anyone likes my idea.
I've had some time to think on this a bit deeper now. I don't believe in any kind of "Spiritual" soul, and I have grave doubts on any "pure" extra sensory spiritualism (ie; a God or spirit world or ghosties). I refuse to say outright that these things do NOT exist, but I have yet to come across any examples that cannot with reflection be attributed to several different phenomena (Tiredness, Starbucks Pebbles, whatever).
I always remember that the "weight of the soul" has been measured by the ancients. The difference in weight between a living and dead body, which of course consists of their last breath. Some see this as evidence of a soul, seperate from our mundane and frail human bodies. I do too, kinda of, but do not fel the need to attach any extra baggage such as "Heaven" or "Pure Spirit" to it.
For me, we all have a soul. It's a nice mental "hook" on which to hang the impossile or very hard to explain facets of Human Existance on. For example:
Life is an awesome concept,
Yeah, but what is "life"?
We can only incompletely explain what it is and how it started,
We'll stick that in with the soul until we can, then.I guess what I'm saying is that, cutting out all the spirtual crap, the soul is an extra "In-Box" of unfiled and unreadable mail, that may or may not eventually be cleared.
or:
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 01:47:43 PM
Y'all are making James Brown cry.
James Brown: Godfather of Soul, and general A Soul.
(http://cdn.channel.aol.com/channels/05/03/458ff6f1-002fc-02cf0-400cb8e1)
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 07, 2010, 04:14:40 AM
I would accept souls as defined:
"The memeplex that originates from a given entity."
I like that
my personal definition of soul (which I've been lugging around for about 6 months now):
the part of you that the rest of the world experiences
Thanks
I think about how people's narratives about a person survive beyond the person himself, and how the ideas and complex memes that described that person still exist as extant information.
In that sense, the soul is slightly less mortal.
Unless you've done a lot of radio broadcasts. Then you'll pretty much exist for a long ass time, even if the world forgets you.
why... I think our ideas are extremely complimentary!
NOW LET'S SCHISM
THAT'S HAWT, OH YEAH.
OUR IDEAS MESH WELL UNDER MATTER/INFORMATION DUALISM. SCHISM THAT.
SCHISM IT ALL OVER YOURSELF.
:ECH:
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 08, 2010, 12:02:13 AM
OUR IDEAS MESH WELL UNDER MATTER/INFORMATION DUALISM. SCHISM THAT.
SCHISM IT ALL OVER YOURSELF.
:ECH:
:aaa:
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 08, 2010, 12:02:13 AM
OUR IDEAS MESH WELL UNDER MATTER/INFORMATION DUALISM. SCHISM THAT.
SCHISM IT ALL OVER YOURSELF.
:ECH:
I came.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 08, 2010, 02:44:50 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 08, 2010, 12:02:13 AM
OUR IDEAS MESH WELL UNDER MATTER/INFORMATION DUALISM. SCHISM THAT.
SCHISM IT ALL OVER YOURSELF.
:ECH:
I came.
Where from?
OHWAITTHATWASASEXUALINNUENDOWASNTITYOUDIRTYGIRL.
Quote from: The Dark Monk on November 07, 2008, 01:51:39 AM
Do you believe we are physical manifestations of spiritual energy?
I believe that we are physical manifestations and that all energy is spiritual energy. I believe that souls are thoughtforms of Brahman or the "Ultimate Source" or whatever you want to call it/him/her.
"A thoughtform is a manifestation of mental energy, also known as a
tulpa in Tibetan mysticism. Its concept is related to the Western philosophy and practice of magic."
Ember: "A homunculus of awareness: an instantaneous observer / observed duality. They are created by everyone every moment (in some formulations they are everyone every moment); and they possess wills of their own."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtform
Food for thought (side effects may include zealous "rationality"):
"The Soul is a spark of light similar to what you see in the periphery of your field of vision from time to time. Everything comes through the eye, I, the lens of time. It is electricalmagnetic (blue/white) energy 'spiraling' forth from the creational source to experience, then returning in the Now. It is consciousness from the collective, who you are, and where you are going after shedding the physical body at Zero Point. It is not ruled but physical limitation or emotions. It is you . . . set free to experience the grids of reality and become your natural state of being. Imagine yourself complete within this program . . . soaring into the endless possibilities that exist outside . . . rejoining a family you may already miss."
http://www.crystalinks.com/whatisasoul.html
Dr. Rick Strassman, the researcher who conducted a 1990 study on the effects of DMT through the University of New Mexico, advanced the thesis that DMT could be the "spirit molecule," linking the physical brain to as-of-yet unknown domains of the afterlife. A practicing Buddhist, Strassman made this proposition based on an intriguing correspondence between fetal development and Buddhist scripture. According to Buddhism, the soul reincarnates seven weeks after death. The pineal gland—that singular organ in the brain that Descartes had considered the seat of the soul—develops in the embryo forty-nine days after conception. Strassman hypothesized that the pineal gland might act as a receiver for the soul, and that DMT could function as the conducting medium. "The pineal gland of evolutionarily older animals, such as lizards and amphibians, is also called the 'third eye,'" Strassman wrote. "Just like the two seeing eyes, the third eye possesses a lens, cornea, and retina." In the event of a cataclysmic shock or at death, the pineal gland might release a flood of DMT into the brain, causing the "life review" and the intense visionary phenomena reported in numerous near-death experiences. —
2012, The Return of Quetzalcoatl, Daniel Pinchbeck
"Just as our own matter system can be created, other matter systems—which like our own, or unlike our own (like our own in that they are made from subatomic particles)—can be made as well. Provided that they are not tuned to the same matter frequencies as ours is, then we shan't be able to relate to them, but they can interpenetrate our own, without our knowledge, simply because our matter system isn't solid. It looks solid only because our atoms can't interpenetrate each other.
I'm saying we don't move into another dimension. You're using the same dimensions, but the quanta interpenetrate each other. So, it's like, to use one of Michael's expressions (very good simile), if you're tuned into BBC1 on the television, you can't see BBC2, but the radio waves which are coming in from the stations are still there, in the same space, but you're not tuned into them. And so, you can tune into the Earth matter system by being alive in this world. Discard that overcoat if you like: You've got another overcoat, made of another matter system. So the mind isn't left stranded just in the ether alone; it can exist in a whole number of different matter systems."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPls...eature=related
"If true a "supermind of space" could create a whole set of matter-systems all co-existing in the same space but tuned to different quantum-wave frequencies. Then fragments of the supermind structure, the "sub-minds", could only tune into one matter-system at a time. Consequently the only reality apparent at any one time would be the one to which a sub-mind is temporarily tuned. When that matter-system became outworn, this sub-mind, being part of the structured sub-quantum fluid, would simply tune into one of the remaining matter-systems and continue to survive. On this basis our brains could well be mere interfacing mechanisms needed to enable the real minds to pilot the body."
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/...alphysics.html
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:09:09 PM
"Just as our own matter system can be created, other matter systems—which like our own, or unlike our own (like our own in that they are made from subatomic particles)—can be made as well. Provided that they are not tuned to the same matter frequencies as ours is, then we shan't be able to relate to them, but they can interpenetrate our own, without our knowledge, simply because our matter system isn't solid. It looks solid only because our atoms can't interpenetrate each other.
OH, ALPHAPANCE...QUANTUMZ!
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:09:09 PM
Food for thought (side effects may include zealous "rationality"):
:magick: :boot: :whack:
Another one? How do they keep getting in here?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
Another one? How do they keep getting in here?
Their matter is at the right frequency for their atoms to interpentrate. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
Another one? How do they keep getting in here?
Their matter is at the right frequency for their atoms to interpentrate. :lulz:
:argh!:
:lulz:
GO MATTER! IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY!
\
:bsex:
QuoteI'm saying we don't move into another dimension. You're using the same dimensions, but the quanta interpenetrate each other.
MY QUANTA WANT TO INTERPENETRATE IN PUBLIC! :sad:
My quanta are extremely antisocial. They don't want to interpenetrate. :cry:
Quote from: Cramulus on October 07, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 07, 2010, 04:14:40 AM
I would accept souls as defined:
"The memeplex that originates from a given entity."
I like that
my personal definition of soul (which I've been lugging around for about 6 months now):
the part of you that the rest of the world experiences
I really like this answer.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
Another one? How do they keep getting in here?
Their matter is at the right frequency for their atoms to interpentrate. :lulz:
:lulz:
The idea of superimposing matter frequencies makes sense to me.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
Another one? How do they keep getting in here?
Their matter is at the right frequency for their atoms to interpentrate. :lulz:
:lulz:
The idea of superimposing matter frequencies makes sense to me.
You haven't taken many physics courses, right?
Because those quotes take things that ARE physically true, but then state them in a way that is both inaccurate and misleading.
For example, "Quanta" are not things.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
The idea of superimposing matter frequencies makes sense to me.
Frequency means a repeating event. What, pray tell, is being repeated?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:37:29 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
The idea of superimposing matter frequencies makes sense to me.
Frequency means a repeating event. What, pray tell, is being repeated?
THE INTERPENETRATION OF MY QUANTA! :boot:
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
Another one? How do they keep getting in here?
Their matter is at the right frequency for their atoms to interpentrate. :lulz:
:lulz:
The idea of superimposing matter frequencies makes sense to me.
:barstool: (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.0)
^
why look, the barstool and the link to the thread about the barstool experiment are interpenetrating the same space! :eek:
Now, let's be fair: The belief in quanta is proof of belief in quanta, which is a belief in proof, which is proof of quanta, I believe.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:40:18 PM
Now, let's be fair: The belief in quanta is proof of belief in quanta, which is a belief in proof, which is proof of quanta, I believe.
Unless you observe it. Then it's proof of the belief that you observed it. Maybe.
And then you die in a waveform collapse. Or you turn into a cat. Something like that.
It just occured to me that while calculus describes the universe, quantum physics describes it further, but in e prime.
:argh!:
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:43:56 PM
And then you die in a waveform collapse. Or you turn into a cat. Something like that.
Either way, you're going in a box.
QUANTUMS IS THE MAGIHKS!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:44:02 PM
It just occured to me that while calculus describes the universe, quantum physics describes it further, but in e prime.
:argh!:
P:potd:
ST OF THE FUCKING DECADE.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:36:02 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:18:35 PM
Another one? How do they keep getting in here?
Their matter is at the right frequency for their atoms to interpentrate. :lulz:
:lulz:
The idea of superimposing matter frequencies makes sense to me.
You haven't taken many physics courses, right?
Because those quotes take things that ARE physically true, but then state them in a way that is both inaccurate and misleading.
I understand that it's postulation concerning scientific subject matter. Ronald Pearson purportedly (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/snyder.html) provides mathematical proofs, which I don't understand because I haven't taken many physics courses.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
For example, "Quanta" are not things.
quan·tum
quan·tum [kwóntəm]
n (plural quan·ta [kwóntə])
-quan·tal [kwónt'l], , adj
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:37:29 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
The idea of superimposing matter frequencies makes sense to me.
Frequency means a repeating event. What, pray tell, is being repeated?
Matter.
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Please explain how "space", which is a location, can possibly vibrate.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 07, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 07, 2010, 04:14:40 AM
I would accept souls as defined:
"The memeplex that originates from a given entity."
I like that
my personal definition of soul (which I've been lugging around for about 6 months now):
the part of you that the rest of the world experiences
it seems incomplete that the soul is exclusively a function of interaction with the outside world.
if one takes their experiences and meditates on them, then it seems that it could embiggen the soul without having any impact on the rest of the world's experience of you?
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
It's better than that. Apparently "matter" vibrates, and "matter" is "space and light".
So, "space and light" vibrate. Which means location vibrates. Somehow.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Please explain how "space", which is a location, can possibly vibrate.
By rapidly making small movements.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
Light is a thoughtform.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 08, 2010, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 07, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 07, 2010, 04:14:40 AM
I would accept souls as defined:
"The memeplex that originates from a given entity."
I like that
my personal definition of soul (which I've been lugging around for about 6 months now):
the part of you that the rest of the world experiences
it seems incomplete that the soul is exclusively a function of interaction with the outside world.
if one takes their experiences and meditates on them, then it seems that it could embiggen the soul without having any impact on the rest of the world's experience of you?
yeah that's is part of what I've been wrestling with
because this definition seems to minimize the internal experience
It seems to say,
Good intentions mean nothing if you're a dick to everybody.
It doesn't matter if you have brilliant ideas - the only thing that matters is their transmission or execution
It doesn't matter if
deep down you're a really great guy, what matters is how you act in the material world.
This worldview treats the social world with much more weight than the private internal world. It seems to say "you are what you do. and little more."
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:05:46 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
It's better than that. Apparently "matter" vibrates, and "matter" is "space and light".
So, "space and light" vibrate. Which means location vibrates. Somehow.
Awesome. So... a concept can vibrate. That makes all the sense in the world. Imma go have sex with "Justice", "Mathematics", "Art", and "Bigotry". Best day ever.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:07:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Please explain how "space", which is a location, can possibly vibrate.
By rapidly making small movements.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
Light is a thoughtform.
Yeah, I think we're done here. Thanks for playing.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:07:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Please explain how "space", which is a location, can possibly vibrate.
By rapidly making small movements.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
Light is a thoughtform.
It's shit like this that makes so happy I gave up on Reiki.
And by 'shit' I mean 'mushy minded garbage wrapped in layers of stupid'.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
Theistic ejaculations
Quote from: Cramulus on October 08, 2010, 08:07:58 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 08, 2010, 08:01:16 PM
it seems incomplete that the soul is exclusively a function of interaction with the outside world.
if one takes their experiences and meditates on them, then it seems that it could embiggen the soul without having any impact on the rest of the world's experience of you?
yeah that's is part of what I've been wrestling with
because this definition seems to minimize the internal experience
It seems to say,
Good intentions mean nothing if you're a dick to everybody.
It doesn't matter if you have brilliant ideas - the only thing that matters is their transmission or execution
It doesn't matter if deep down you're a really great guy, what matters is how you act in the material world.
This worldview treats the social world with much more weight than the private internal world. It seems to say "you are what you do. and little more."
well, i might be inclined to agree that the behavior is the only part that really matters, but the 'soul' seems like it should incorporate the internal.
of course, that simply discounts the internal experience, which seems to suck only in regards to yourself and makes perfect sense in regards to everyone else. :lol:
so, what does it mean for something to 'matter' in this context? (don't say vibrating thoughts, plz)
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:13:51 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Ok, so all matter is composed of a location (space) and particles of light? Ok.. so then.. what is light made out of?
Theistic ejaculations
:fap:
thinking about it a bit more, let me amend my statements...
The internal experience matters because it impacts how you act. Your motivation, your integrity, your willpower, the things that interest you... these are purely INTERNAL things, but they have a huge bearing on what you do in the material world.
in answer to the question "What matters?"
I'd say that anything that can affect the external world matters. (and that technically does include things which only affect the internal world) We all build this world by sending our vibrations* (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/roglol.gif) into it. The internal experience, the conclusions we reach, the attitudes we hold, these things can affect the world if we act on them or allow them to influence us.
So if you occasionally have murderous thoughts but do not act on them,
you're okay. That doesn't matter.
But if you have murderous thoughts and actually go do violence to people, or transmit your violent attitudes to others,
that's when it starts to matter.
this whole thing goes hand in hand with my reading / interpretation of The Art of Memetics, which treats us as extremely complex memetic aggregators. From our point of view, we feel like we're these autonomous individuals. From a meme's point of view, we're these machines which they can use to transform and transmit themselves. From a removed point of view, we have a symbiotic relationship with ideas - they use us and we use them.
QuoteTime and space quickly disappear. If we want to seize time and space, if we treasure life, we should chant "O-Mi-To-Fo (Amitabha Buddha)" and learn from "Amitabha Buddha." "Amitabha" means infinite light and infinite life. Infinite light is boundless space; infinite life is endless time. If we can make time and space boundless and limitless, we will have risen above the confinement of time and space. We will have broken from the rounds of birth and death. We will have turned ignorance to enlightenment. We will have escaped from the sea of suffering from samsara and have transcended the confusion and hindrance of worldly phenomena. We will have ventured into the bright and free world of Nirvana, the Pure Land of ultimate bliss.
My best wishes to all of you. May each of you extend the limited existence of life into unlimited time and space. May each of you walk the broad path of peace and happiness in life. Thanks to all of you."
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Buddhist_Perspective_on_Time_and_Space
this shit is starting to look like a discussion on ki, unarmed martial arts, and me stabbing people.
Ninja fanboi -"well I can focus my ki into my hands to make it hurt you more"
Me- "and I can focus my ki into the end of my sword to make it stab you. I win."
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:29:36 PM
QuoteTime and space quickly disappear. If we want to seize time and space, if we treasure life, we should chant “O-Mi-To-Fo (Amitabha Buddha)” and learn from “Amitabha Buddha.” “Amitabha” means infinite light and infinite life. Infinite light is boundless space; infinite life is endless time. If we can make time and space boundless and limitless, we will have risen above the confinement of time and space. We will have broken from the rounds of birth and death. We will have turned ignorance to enlightenment. We will have escaped from the sea of suffering from samsara and have transcended the confusion and hindrance of worldly phenomena. We will have ventured into the bright and free world of Nirvana, the Pure Land of ultimate bliss.
My best wishes to all of you. May each of you extend the limited existence of life into unlimited time and space. May each of you walk the broad path of peace and happiness in life. Thanks to all of you."
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Buddhist_Perspective_on_Time_and_Space
You'd be better off comparing Amitabha with Ain Sof Aur than with quantum physics.
Just saying.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:29:36 PM
QuoteTime and space quickly disappear. If we want to seize time and space, if we treasure life, we should chant "O-Mi-To-Fo (Amitabha Buddha)" and learn from "Amitabha Buddha." "Amitabha" means infinite light and infinite life. Infinite light is boundless space; infinite life is endless time. If we can make time and space boundless and limitless, we will have risen above the confinement of time and space. We will have broken from the rounds of birth and death. We will have turned ignorance to enlightenment. We will have escaped from the sea of suffering from samsara and have transcended the confusion and hindrance of worldly phenomena. We will have ventured into the bright and free world of Nirvana, the Pure Land of ultimate bliss.
My best wishes to all of you. May each of you extend the limited existence of life into unlimited time and space. May each of you walk the broad path of peace and happiness in life. Thanks to all of you."
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Buddhist_Perspective_on_Time_and_Space
Ok, so a Buddhist take on these things is somehow more valid and relevant than a scientist's? Ok. Too bad I'm a Daoist, not a Buddhist. I'm gonna finish up with these guys then have another go with Yin and Yang.
:?
So Buddha is the one theistically ejaculating and his sperm is quanta?
Man, I'm never going to figure this QM stuff out!
Quote from: Cramulus on October 08, 2010, 08:27:27 PM
thinking about it a bit more, let me amend my statements...
The internal experience matters because it impacts how you act. Your motivation, your integrity, your willpower, the things that interest you... these are purely INTERNAL things, but they have a huge bearing on what you do in the material world.
in answer to the question "What matters?"
I'd say that anything that can affect the external world matters. (and that technically does include things which only affect the internal world) We all build this world by sending our vibrations* (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/roglol.gif) into it. The internal experience, the conclusions we reach, the attitudes we hold, these things can affect the world if we act on them or allow them to influence us.
So if you occasionally have murderous thoughts but do not act on them,
you're okay. That doesn't matter.
But if you have murderous thoughts and actually go do violence to people, or transmit your violent attitudes to others,
that's when it starts to matter.
this whole thing goes hand in hand with my reading / interpretation of The Art of Memetics, which treats us as extremely complex memetic aggregators. From our point of view, we feel like we're these autonomous individuals. From a meme's point of view, we're these machines which they can use to transform and transmit themselves. From a removed point of view, we have a symbiotic relationship with ideas - they use us and we use them.
I see what you're saying overall, but this example...what about intrusive thoughts that you don't act upon but come unbiden and unwanted? I suppose you still have look at the tangible effects: drinking more, short temper, lack of sleep.
So if an idea has any tangible, measurable effect, positive or negative, then it matters. If not, it's inert. Hm...
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:33:41 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:29:36 PM
QuoteTime and space quickly disappear. If we want to seize time and space, if we treasure life, we should chant "O-Mi-To-Fo (Amitabha Buddha)" and learn from "Amitabha Buddha." "Amitabha" means infinite light and infinite life. Infinite light is boundless space; infinite life is endless time. If we can make time and space boundless and limitless, we will have risen above the confinement of time and space. We will have broken from the rounds of birth and death. We will have turned ignorance to enlightenment. We will have escaped from the sea of suffering from samsara and have transcended the confusion and hindrance of worldly phenomena. We will have ventured into the bright and free world of Nirvana, the Pure Land of ultimate bliss.
My best wishes to all of you. May each of you extend the limited existence of life into unlimited time and space. May each of you walk the broad path of peace and happiness in life. Thanks to all of you."
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Buddhist_Perspective_on_Time_and_Space
Ok, so a Buddhist take on these things is somehow more valid and relevant than a scientist's? Ok. Too bad I'm a Daoist, not a Buddhist. I'm gonna finish up with these guys then have another go with Yin and Yang.
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Ah. Well, I'm so glad you've figured out what "matter" is composed of.
Care to enlighten us?
Space and light.
Please explain how "space", which is a location, can possibly vibrate.
MY PANCE ARE A LOCATION, AND THEY VIBRATE.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
So, what was your reasoning for, when the conversation was about physics, you post something about buddhism?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
So, what was your reasoning for, when the conversation was about physics, you post something about buddhism?
TEH DANZIG WOO LEE MASTERZ.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:37:27 PM
:?
So Buddha is the one theistically ejaculating and his sperm is quanta?
If you wish. Does quantum physics assert that matter is space and light?
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:42:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:37:27 PM
:?
So Buddha is the one theistically ejaculating and his sperm is quanta?Quote
If you wish. Does quantum physics assert that matter is space and light?
No.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:42:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:37:27 PM
:?
So Buddha is the one theistically ejaculating and his sperm is quanta?
If you wish. Does quantum physics assert that matter is space and light?
No.
Light = photons = pure energy.
You get photons by whacking matter. Saying that light is matter is like saying that the words you say are what you are made out of.
Space doesn't make up matter, either. Space is where you PUT matter, and while it has structure, it has no mass. Chew on that one a bit...Ashtekar loops would make GREAT mahgjickqual explanations, if the purpose is to use confusing subjects to prop up metaphysical garbage.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
So, what was your reasoning for, when the conversation was about physics, you post something about buddhism?
I didn't realize we were still discussing quantum physics. You asked me what matter is composed of and I told you what I believe.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:07:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 07:58:43 PM
Light is a thoughtform.
So if I stop thinking, the sun will turn off?
Define "I".
Cram,
that all makes sense to me, but it still seems like it takes a shoehorn to fit 'soul' into it...
what was that term that someone used recently for when something acts as a block to further thought on something?
i think 'soul' seems to fall into that category, except it is a merciful block that all parties in the conversation eventually wish to employ... same as 'god'.
wrestling with what it really is seems to be a gordian knot. you can't straighten it out without being incomplete or inconsistent.... (a godelian knot, i guess) so you either slap a label on it and file it away without defining it rigidly ('i know it when i see it'), or you cut the knot with your sword by rigidly defining it in some way that's not quite satisfying. which is where i'd put your definition of 'soul', or my definition of 'god'.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
Then why bring it up at all?
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:46:43 PM
Define "I".
Me. Doktor Howl. The horrible cunt from Tucson.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:46:43 PM
I didn't realize we were still discussing quantum physics. You asked me what matter is composed of and I told you what I believe.
I believe that matter is composed of God's poop.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go polish part of a turd.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:42:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:37:27 PM
:?
So Buddha is the one theistically ejaculating and his sperm is quanta?
If you wish. Does quantum physics assert that matter is space and light?
No.
Light = photons = pure energy.
You get photons by whacking matter. Saying that light is matter is like saying that the words you say are what you are made out of.
Yes, but I equate light to "consciousness". Sometimes.
QuoteSpace doesn't make up matter, either. Space is where you PUT matter, and while it has structure, it has no mass. Chew on that one a bit...Ashtekar loops would make GREAT mahgjickqual explanations, if the purpose is to use confusing subjects to prop up metaphysical garbage.
true.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:46:43 PM
I didn't realize we were still discussing quantum physics. You asked me what matter is composed of and I told you what I believe.
Ah. I see.
Well, the poetry corner is here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?board=15.0). You might be more comfortable dealing with trite metaphor and recursion there.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:50:37 PM
Yes, but I equate light to "consciousness". Sometimes.
I equate light to "lets me see". All the time.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
Then why bring it up at all?
Because this thread is about belief.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:46:43 PM
Define "I".
Me. Doktor Howl. The horrible cunt from Tucson.
I don't think you can stop thinking. But if You (singularly) were to stop thinking and Brahman were to continue thinking, then I don't think the sun would turn off. I think.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:53:06 PM
I don't think you can stop thinking.
You haven't seen me with a head full of cactus, bad whiskey, and lorezapam.
If my thoughts controled the universe, it would be dark, smelly, and prone incoherent rage.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:53:06 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
Then why bring it up at all?
Because this thread is about belief.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:46:43 PM
Define "I".
Me. Doktor Howl. The horrible cunt from Tucson.
I don't think you can stop thinking. But if You (singularly) were to stop thinking and Brahman were to continue thinking, then I don't think the sun would turn off. I think.
Isn't not thinking what you're supposed to do in meditation?
Also, you seem to think a lot of things sometimes, you think.
So, do you have a cohesive theology, or do you just make up whatever new-age bullshit springs to mind as you go?
I hear what you're saying, Iptuous. My definition is probably not compatible with lots of other definitions of the soul - god's breath, the part of you that goes to the afterlife, consciousness, etc etc. As odd as it sounds, I am not too interested in "truths" about the soul. I should say that I selected my idea specifically because I want to arrange my life in a way which emphasizes kinetic energy. Motion, direction, new ideas, doing things, having experiences.
My introverted tendencies occasionally make me antisocial, comfortable with isolation. But the times when I'm doing things, making new stories, spreading novelty, ENGAGING the universe rather than commenting on it or holding it at arms length -- those are the times that I really feel like I'm alive. So if I say that somebody who doesn't DO anything doesn't really have a soul, understand that it is an attitude built for personal utility.
I appreciate the chance to discuss this btw, it's been itching me for a while and I haven't gotten a lot of feedback on it.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:50:37 PM
Yes, but I equate light to "consciousness". Sometimes.
Ontologically or physically? I guess it doesn't matter since you say you flip-flop.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:53:06 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
Then why bring it up at all?
Because this thread is about belief.
But you said you don't believe it. And this thread is about belief in the soul, specifically. which has nothing to do with what you quoted, or rather it is a side discussion from a Buddhist perspective on souls. It is still irrelevant to what you personally believe about souls, though.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:56:18 PM
So, do you have a cohesive theology, or do you just make up whatever new-age bullshit springs to mind as you go?
My mother's best friend is this Cherohonkey that once said "Angels are so passe".
:lulz:
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:57:33 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:50:37 PM
Yes, but I equate light to "consciousness". Sometimes.
Ontologically or physically? I guess it doesn't matter since you say you flip-flop.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:53:06 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 08:38:56 PM
I am not passing value judgments on the validity or relevancy of your views or the views of scientists at large. I am also not a Buddhist to my awareness. My girlfriend is on days she feels like it.
Then why bring it up at all?
Because this thread is about belief.
But you said you don't believe it. And this thread is about belief in the soul, specifically. which has nothing to do with what you quoted, or rather it is a side discussion from a Buddhist perspective on souls. It is still irrelevant to what you personally believe about souls, though.
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:56:18 PM
So, do you have a cohesive theology, or do you just make up whatever new-age bullshit springs to mind as you go?
I'm going to guess that he does. Sometimes. When he feels like it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 08:58:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:56:18 PM
So, do you have a cohesive theology, or do you just make up whatever new-age bullshit springs to mind as you go?
My mother's best friend is this Cherohonkey that once said "Angels are so passe".
:lulz:
:facepalm:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:56:18 PM
So, do you have a cohesive theology, or do you just make up whatever new-age bullshit springs to mind as you go?
I am Indopagan (http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/IndoPaganism). I believe in Hindu theology which is as cohesive as you want it to be. Sometimes I make things up and believe them. Or at least I think I'm making them up. I can only believe what makes sense to me. If something else is presented that contradicts what I believe and makes more sense, then I might amend my beliefs. Or if something doesn't make sense to me, and I claim to believe it, then I'm lying. Sometimes I do that too.
Ok where is my stabbing knife?
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:00:56 PM
I am Quote from: http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/IndoPaganismIndopagan
.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/obamas_laughing_at_you_not_with_you_bumper_sticker-p128254014428643582trl0_400.jpg)
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:00:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:56:18 PM
So, do you have a cohesive theology, or do you just make up whatever new-age bullshit springs to mind as you go?
I am Indopagan (http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/IndoPaganism). I believe in Hindu theology which is as cohesive as you want it to be. Sometimes I make things up and believe them. Or at least I think I'm making them up. I can only believe what makes sense to me. If something else is presented that contradicts what I believe and makes more sense, then I might amend my beliefs. Or if something doesn't make sense to me, and I claim to believe it, then I'm lying. Sometimes I do that too.
So, you're a Honkindu...
No, I'm going to leave this alone for the moment.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Oh, of course. That makes sense. I can't think to clearly with Yin and Yang vibrating so hard in my orifices.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:00:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 08:56:18 PM
So, do you have a cohesive theology, or do you just make up whatever new-age bullshit springs to mind as you go?
I am Quote from: http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/IndoPaganismIndopagan
. I believe in Hindu theology which is as cohesive as you want it to be.
Wrong in two obvious ways, and in many not so obvious ways.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:00:56 PM
Sometimes I make things up and believe them. Or at least I think I'm making them up. I can only believe what makes sense to me. If something else is presented that contradicts what I believe and makes more sense, then I might amend my beliefs. Or if something doesn't make sense to me, and I claim to believe it, then I'm lying. Sometimes I do that too.
:retard:
Light is composeof photons, matter may well emit photons but there is hell of a lot of other suff involved, matter is not composed of photons.
But more direct and to the point, you really should have stopped while you were ahead.
I think that "misusing and misunderstanding of quantum mechanics as use in an argument for some impossible phenomena" should be explicitly outlined in the intro thread as penalised by a shit kicking.
Ideally I'd like schrodingers festering corpse to gradually become animated as a zombie the longer the "debate" goes on, before ultimately strangling the offender, but sadly certain things are beyond our means.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Evidently?
Ok, well then, this information should be readily accessible in a peer-reviewed science publication.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.
No, not a Hindu (which is a BS classification, anyway.) An "Indopagan". An even bigger BS classification, but hey, it's a free country right?
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.
No, not a Hindu (which is a BS classification, anyway.) An "Indopagan". An even bigger BS classification, but hey, it's a free country right?
Whatever. Its the same thing really. Maybe he calls himself an Indopagan because Pagans can afford to waffle on theology and pantheons and stuff.
He is a McWiccan. :lulz:
IMA INDOPAGAN. BRB GONNA CHARGE MAH SIGILS WAFFLES.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Evidently?
Ok, well then, this information should be readily accessible in a peer-reviewed science publication.
Evidenced by the fact that Ronald Pearson and the Campaign for Philosophical Freedom believe in them.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
I still have an idea. I just stopped caring whether it makes sense to you when I perceived your posts as condescending.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.
No, I'm always presently somewhat Hindu.
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Personal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Personal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Barstools and trains usually.
Incidentally,
QuoteRonald Pearson, the Derbyshire scientist who has discovered a structure of the ether that has potential to evolve intelligence. This has provided the mathematics to back up the experiments of Sir William Crookes and Charles Richet. In these experiments, deceased people returned, proving they had survived death.
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp.html
LOL ETHER LOL
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.
No, not a Hindu (which is a BS classification, anyway.) An "Indopagan". An even bigger BS classification, but hey, it's a free country right?
Whatever. Its the same thing really. Maybe he calls himself an Indopagan because Pagans can afford to waffle on theology and pantheons and stuff.
You got a point there, Blight. Because, it isn't like there are multiple different Veddic religions that have very different customs and practices, a category into which Buddhism falls, though much of the Buddhism we get in America is Chinese influenced. But, don't listen to me. I just studied religions and philosophy for 3 years. :lulz:
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:15:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:06:51 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Evidently?
Ok, well then, this information should be readily accessible in a peer-reviewed science publication.
Evidenced by the fact that Ronald Pearson and the Campaign for Philosophical Freedom believe in them.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
I still have an idea. I just stopped caring whether it makes sense to you when I perceived your posts as condescending.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.
No, I'm always presently somewhat Hindu.
:magick:
"I believe that light is a thoughtform."
Light is still not a thoughtform.
"I believe that space vibrates."
Space still doesn't vibrate.
"I believe that matter is made up of light and space."
Matter is still not made up of light and space.
Two things that may or may not be important:
1. Psychonomally is stuffing his head full of useless garbage.
2. It won't get him laid. Even with hairy Pagan chicks.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:15:22 PM
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Peer reviewed publications.
Philosophical speculation is not for quantum mechanics.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:18:12 PM
Incidentally,
QuoteRonald Pearson, the Derbyshire scientist who has discovered a structure of the ether that has potential to evolve intelligence. This has provided the mathematics to back up the experiments of Sir William Crookes and Charles Richet. In these experiments, deceased people returned, proving they had survived death.
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp.html
LOL ETHER LOL
HULLO, 1890.
OMFG
NOODLES EVERYWHERE!!!!
Cram,
i think you are correct in that personal utility is likely the best measure of validity in these matters... i mean, really, is there another option?
WE CAN'T STOP HERE...
\
(http://www.fargonebooks.com/fgimages/hunter.gif)
/
...THIS IS ETHER COUNTRY.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 07, 2010, 04:14:40 AM
I would accept souls as defined:
"The memeplex that originates from a given entity."
Yeah, that. Sort of. But so far the only use for that definition is making sense of people talking about souls.
Coincidentally, I recently realized that if you replace "energetic body" with "memetic body", it generally works out in most of the cases. Except that "energy" (in the spiritual sense) often has a bit broader meaning than just memes. It is usually exactly that broader meaning I have problems with.
For example, somebody dies in a situation of immense emotional stress, and people claim he left behind a "ghost". This (type of) ghost was explained to me as a residue of their "energetic body". Well, if you replace that with "memetic body" (or memeplex, if you like), as the sum of emotions and thoughts and ideas that person caused [also in others] during their life, and especially the turbulent end of it, you can totally make sense of the statement that it is this residue that causes people to see ghosts.
This discussion then led me to the conclusion that, for an "memetic/energetic body" to leave a residue, it needs to be able to take hold in a larger "memetic/energetic body", otherwise it would dissipate. The believing in ghosts/souls/etc person I was talking to did sort of agree that would make sense.
I liked that. The way it enabled me to make some sort of sense of a thing I would otherwise discard as nonsense. It also made the discussion a lot more fruitful (as opposed to an otherwise fruitless argument, we could continue and move on to more real-ish matters without compeltely dismissing all the premises).
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 08, 2010, 09:21:53 PM
OMFG
NOODLES EVERYWHERE!!!!
You need to stop eating noodles, my friend. It will ruin your electronics someday. :lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on October 08, 2010, 09:23:36 PM
Cram,
i think you are correct in that personal utility is likely the best measure of validity in these matters... i mean, really, is there another option?
Yes.
Souls are real things. Specifically, they're the part of you that God eats when you die.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole. Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete. I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share. And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 09:19:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:09:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 08:59:02 PM
No he believes it sometimes, even though he's not a Buddhist in his awareness, even though his equally indecisive girlfriend is when she feels like it.
Let's not forget about the interphasing quanta.
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
When exactly did you stop caring whether or not you have any idea of what you're talking about?
When he decided to occasionally be a Hindu.
No, not a Hindu (which is a BS classification, anyway.) An "Indopagan". An even bigger BS classification, but hey, it's a free country right?
Whatever. Its the same thing really. Maybe he calls himself an Indopagan because Pagans can afford to waffle on theology and pantheons and stuff.
You got a point there, Blight. Because, it isn't like there are multiple different Veddic religions that have very different customs and practices, a category into which Buddhism falls, though much of the Buddhism we get in America is Chinese influenced. But, don't listen to me. I just studied religions and philosophy for 3 years. :lulz:
I'm agreeing (that is the reason they're BS categories), but might as well use the terms interchangeably here, since well... :lulz: the whole thing. It's not like he's specifically saying he's a Shaivist.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
If I hit you with a barstool and it hurts. It doesnt fucking matter if you and the stool are 'solid' or not.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
wut
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
Utter and complete rubbish. If I hit you with a barstool, what you CALL it becomes utterly irrelevant, when stacked up against the major head trauma that you will receive. Likewise, if you are standing on the tracks, you can bullshit around all you like about the reality or the solidity or the semantics of the words "South-bound freight train", but you're still going to get turned into a greasy spot on the rails.
The universe doesn't give a shit what you believe. It's gonna do it's thing, and if you don't react in the right way, then you get to find out whether or not souls are real
firsthand.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole. Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete. I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share. And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
I'm guessing that this Pearson guy is the type of person used to writing with green ink.
Quote
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
No personal beliefs equal perception of reality. You could believe that a shot of raw sewage is good for your health, but that is not reality.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:26:06 PM
I'm agreeing (that is the reason they're BS categories), but might as well use the terms interchangeably here, since well... :lulz: the whole thing. It's not like he's specifically saying he's a Shaivist.
Oh, I know
you are agreeing with me (hence the :lulz:). And I'm agreeing with you, as well. :lulz:
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole. Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete. I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share. And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
:spit2:
Imma go run and hide.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 08, 2010, 09:24:03 PM
Coincidentally, I recently realized that if you replace "energetic body" with "memetic body", it generally works out in most of the cases. Except that "energy" (in the spiritual sense) often has a bit broader meaning than just memes. It is usually exactly that broader meaning I have problems with.
For example, somebody dies in a situation of immense emotional stress, and people claim he left behind a "ghost". This (type of) ghost was explained to me as a residue of their "energetic body". Well, if you replace that with "memetic body" (or memeplex, if you like), as the sum of emotions and thoughts and ideas that person caused [also in others] during their life, and especially the turbulent end of it, you can totally make sense of the statement that it is this residue that causes people to see ghosts.
that's a cool observation
the cats who wrote the Art of Memetics have a lot of talk about how they dislike the word Energy as its used in occult circles.
Energy is a great term for describing a very small number of physical events. If we try to use it as a catch-all metaphor to describe how the universe works, it falls short in a number of ways. Newtonian physics is no good for describing stuff like social situations!
In a world of information systems, reputation, influence, flexibility, and signal intensity are much more useful.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:15:22 PM
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Peer reviewed publications.
Philosophical speculation is not for quantum mechanics.
I do it anyway.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 08, 2010, 09:27:02 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
If I hit you with a barstool and it hurts. It doesnt fucking matter if you and the stool are 'solid' or not.
It might still matter if I can remember that the question is of philosophical interest to me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl
Utter and complete rubbish. If I hit you with a barstool, what you CALL it becomes utterly irrelevant, when stacked up against the major head trauma that you will receive. Likewise, if you are standing on the tracks, you can bullshit around all you like about the reality or the solidity or the semantics of the words "South-bound freight train", but you're still going to get turned into a greasy spot on the rails.
The universe doesn't give a shit what you believe. It's gonna do it's thing, and if you don't react in the right way, then you get to find out whether or not souls are real firsthand.
Haven't you heard that one man's trash is another wolf's treasure? Maybe the universe does give a shit about what I believe. I haven't asked.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:30:23 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole. Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete. I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share. And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
I'm guessing that this Pearson guy is the type of person used to writing with green ink.
Quote
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
No personal beliefs equal perception of reality. You could believe that a shot of raw sewage is good for your health, but that is not reality.
"Personal reality" = perception of reality. That's what you have.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:38:00 PM
Haven't you heard that one man's trash is another wolf's treasure?
Okay, I give up. You're a retard. Go on without me, I've exhausted my endurance for this shit.
Christ, I fucking hate new-age hippies.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:38:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:15:22 PM
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Peer reviewed publications.
Philosophical speculation is not for quantum mechanics.
I do it anyway.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 08, 2010, 09:27:02 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
If I hit you with a barstool and it hurts. It doesnt fucking matter if you and the stool are 'solid' or not.
It might still matter if I can remember that the question is of philosophical interest to me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl
Utter and complete rubbish. If I hit you with a barstool, what you CALL it becomes utterly irrelevant, when stacked up against the major head trauma that you will receive. Likewise, if you are standing on the tracks, you can bullshit around all you like about the reality or the solidity or the semantics of the words "South-bound freight train", but you're still going to get turned into a greasy spot on the rails.
The universe doesn't give a shit what you believe. It's gonna do it's thing, and if you don't react in the right way, then you get to find out whether or not souls are real firsthand.
Haven't you heard that one man's trash is another wolf's treasure? Maybe the universe does give a shit about what I believe. I haven't asked.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:30:23 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole. Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete. I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share. And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
I'm guessing that this Pearson guy is the type of person used to writing with green ink.
Quote
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
No personal beliefs equal perception of reality. You could believe that a shot of raw sewage is good for your health, but that is not reality.
"Personal reality" = perception of reality. That's what you have.
The semantic bullshit is going to make my brain asplode!
:asplode:
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:38:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:15:22 PM
I was quoting Ronald Pearson. There are the quanta that quantum physicists study and the quanta that interphases with them evidently.
Peer reviewed publications.
Philosophical speculation is not for quantum mechanics.
I do it anyway.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 08, 2010, 09:27:02 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
If I hit you with a barstool and it hurts. It doesnt fucking matter if you and the stool are 'solid' or not.
It might still matter if I can remember that the question is of philosophical interest to me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl
Utter and complete rubbish. If I hit you with a barstool, what you CALL it becomes utterly irrelevant, when stacked up against the major head trauma that you will receive. Likewise, if you are standing on the tracks, you can bullshit around all you like about the reality or the solidity or the semantics of the words "South-bound freight train", but you're still going to get turned into a greasy spot on the rails.
The universe doesn't give a shit what you believe. It's gonna do it's thing, and if you don't react in the right way, then you get to find out whether or not souls are real firsthand.
Haven't you heard that one man's trash is another wolf's treasure? Maybe the universe does give a shit about what I believe. I haven't asked.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 09:30:23 PM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole. Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete. I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share. And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
I'm guessing that this Pearson guy is the type of person used to writing with green ink.
Quote
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
No personal beliefs equal perception of reality. You could believe that a shot of raw sewage is good for your health, but that is not reality.
"Personal reality" = perception of reality. That's what you have.
:troll:
Basically it made me realize that (spiritual) energy = memes plus some other unexplained and sometimes supernatural stuff.
I do believe, however that some of this other stuff is real (real in the sense that memes are real), although most of it probably isn't. One of my goals (I set many, many years ago) is figuring out what this other real stuff is. Although I'm betting on it being just something natural, not magickal (in the "doesn't really exist/happen" variety of magick).
Although, memes are a pretty broad definition as well, so once I figure it out, I could classify the other stuff as memes as well (say, hormones, or something). But that doesn't matter, cause if memes include the other stuff, I still need to find out what it is, not just call it "memes" or "energy" with a wavy-hand gesture. Doesn't mean I can't entirely use the terms at all in the mean time, though, at least, I think an honest desire to figure out what exactly it is should be enough.
if some degree of handwaving is inevitable, shouldn't it be used to dismiss the concept in total? (in favor of a set of more specific and useful/correct concepts)
if 'soul' is simply a label that is ingrained in us so deeply due to historical precedent, then is seeking for content to fit into the label really admirable? i mean, it's in there so deeply, that it's hard not to try wrapping it around something, but wouldn't resisting this urge, so that we can eventually extract it from our collective mind be the more virtuous course?
So far in my personal experience.... spiritual "energy" or whatever we want to call it appears to be some combination psychosomatic response as informed by the memetics active on the individual.
For example, I know a guy who is kind of an ass. He loves to tell all about how he was trained by a Martial Arts master who was brought here from China by his Grandmother and how his master made his (whatever they call the snazy little outfits) and his sword... and how he buried those with his Master when his master died. He also knows all about using "energy".
The first time I met this dude, my bullshit detector went off. So the Harbinger and I watched him do his 'energy' work for a bit. When he decided to try it with us, he quickly got confused and then said "Um, this is weird, I can't really ... its like a black hole or something". We smiled and explained that while his energy is based on water or earth or air or fire (which is what he claimed), ours is based on Chaos which is all of that an more, an energy called ChaoKi and practiced only by a few of the Buddhist sects.
Of course, the truth was, we simply didn't give him the unconscious feedback that everyone else was via body language etc. I'm pretty sure he actually believes he's doing something and has trained his brain to process the visual cues as actual 'feeling'. If he'd just been bullshitting us, he wouldn't have been stumped by our lack of feedback.
Either that or we do wield the awesome ChaoKi!
:lulz:
:lulz: @ Tosk.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
My question is this: If you're going to try to describe the universe and how it functions, why not use observational data and math, instead of a bunch of pseudoscience and bullshit?
Firstly, I wasn't using the pseudoscience in my initial post to describe my views in whole. Part of Ronald Pearson's theory ("hypothesis")/mathematical (subjective) proofs makes sense to me, and part of it doesn't or seems incomplete. I just think it's interesting, so I decided to share. And sometimes the pseudoscience makes sense to me, so I use real scientific terms to explain belief because scientific terms superimpose laymans' terms and it's the way in which I am able to best explain my ideas.
QuotePersonal beliefs do not equal reality. If you act as if they do, then reality will correct you in painful and eventually lethal ways.
Personal beliefs equal personal reality. I understand that the stool will hurt me if you hit me with it, but whether or not it's "solid" is contingent upon semantic interpretation.
To point out the flaws in that reasoning, I'll have to quote myself from page 14 of this very thread:
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 08:32:48 PM
Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.
This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.
'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.
But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.
~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.
~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.
Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.
Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.
SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.
Which leads us to this gem:
Quote from: So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul. Now for the brain hurty part of the post.
Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul. Here is we know from various speculations out there. Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states. The body requires energy to function. When a body dies that energy is gone. As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent. Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own. Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.
Or I could be lying.
What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.
WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.
But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.
Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.
Oh, and I was completely serious about the mana in the coffee. :fnord:
I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". :lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on October 08, 2010, 09:58:17 PM
if some degree of handwaving is inevitable, shouldn't it be used to dismiss the concept in total? (in favor of a set of more specific and useful/correct concepts)
No, at least, not for that reason alone. There's loads of concepts I can (and do) talk about that, if people would press me for the gritty details, I'd need to resort to hand-waving or "I don't know".
Really, if you'd ask me about how exactly the Internet works, I could tell you a lot of things about it, but if you'd persistently keep up the inquiry, I'd have to either handwave or say "I dont know" at some point (without consulting some reference like wikipedia).
And it's not always better to prefer "I don't know" over handwaving ("It sort of works like this, it just does, bear with me for a moment") because at "I don't know" the explanation stops, while in the case of explaining something complex like the Internet, I might have to handwave some parts, in order to be able to explain other parts which I would again be certain (and correct) about.
Of course that only works if you know that the subject matter is knowable, and there is a single theory (protocol, in this case, even) about how it exactly works, but you just don't know all the details. Lacking that, stopping at "I don't know" might be preferable.
Quoteif 'soul' is simply a label that is ingrained in us so deeply due to historical precedent, then is seeking for content to fit into the label really admirable? i mean, it's in there so deeply, that it's hard not to try wrapping it around something, but wouldn't resisting this urge, so that we can eventually extract it from our collective mind be the more virtuous course?
Depends on what your goal is, really. If it's rational truth, or Science or something, then, yeah I guess. Though if you put it that way, in terms of admirability and virtue, I don't really want that to become my goal then. It sounds kinda dogmatic to me.
However, I was talking about it from an entirely different kind of context. Namely that of communication. I think it's pretty neat that by figuring out a couple of definitions, suddenly a world-view that I thought was rather unbelievable, sort of starts to come together and at least parts of it start making some sense.
And that's a good thing for both parties. One the one hand I learn to look at things in a different perspective (which I enjoy, and occasionally find useful), also I get to understand people with that worldview better. And on the other side, the other person gets some sense talked into them, but not in a bash-over-the-head UR WRONG manner, which usually just causes an adverse reaction and unwillingness to listen further, but by trying to face the same way as them, and bending them to a different course somewhat. Which is much more likely to cause them to investigate their beliefs further, and who knows, maybe they'll start doubting the really nonsensical bits.
Quote from: Kai on October 08, 2010, 11:15:07 PM
I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". :lulz:
Quanta are thoughtforms.
:lulz:
Apples are thoughtforms.
Moon rocks are thoughtforms.
Cuddlefish are thoughtforms.
Lindsey Lohan are thoughtforms.
Quote from: Telarus on October 09, 2010, 12:04:18 AM
:lulz:
Apples are thoughtforms.
Moon rocks are thoughtforms.
Cuddlefish are thoughtforms.
Lindsey Lohan are thoughtforms.
He gets it.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 08, 2010, 11:15:07 PM
I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". :lulz:
Quanta are thoughtforms.
Define "thoughtforms". Taboo the words "thought", "form" or any synonyms.
Thoughtforms are boogflinks elementary connected to zung.
Quote from: Kai on October 09, 2010, 12:09:10 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 08, 2010, 11:15:07 PM
I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". :lulz:
Quanta are thoughtforms.
Define "thoughtforms". Taboo the words "thought", "form" or any synonyms.
Anything or anyone emanating from the mind of God.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:31:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 09, 2010, 12:09:10 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 08, 2010, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 08, 2010, 11:15:07 PM
I got to about 8 pages back, but then I decided I wanted an explanation of how matter was composed of both "light" and "space", yet not composed of "quanta". :lulz:
Quanta are thoughtforms.
Define "thoughtforms". Taboo the words "thought", "form" or any synonyms.
Anything or anyone emanating from the mind of God.
You make pantheists facepalm, don't you?
Is that if you rob a jeans store?
A pant heist?
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 09, 2010, 12:51:25 AM
Is that if you rob a jeans store?
A pant heist?
:lulz:
Pan-theist. Short version: everything is God.
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:58:03 AM
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:58:03 AM
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.
Would you like to me to clarify something?
Thought forms literally do not exist.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:58:03 AM
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.
Like I said. McWiccan with extra Fluff and a side of Quanta.
Quote from: Faust on October 09, 2010, 01:03:05 AM
Thought forms literally do not exist.
Whatever fiddles your ferret.
I'm not Wiccan by the way.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 01:00:56 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:58:03 AM
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.
Would you like to me to clarify something?
No, because I guarantee I know more about half of your claims than you do. Would you like me to clarify why it's ridiculous for you to be an Indopagan and panentheist?
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 01:07:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 01:00:56 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:58:03 AM
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.
Would you like to me to clarify something?
No, because I guarantee I know more about half of your claims than you do. Would you like me to clarify why it's ridiculous for you to be an Indopagan and panentheist?
Sure. As a bonus question you can clarify why Discordianism is ridiculous.
I have decided I no longer think that souls exist, on the grounds that Wolf Boy here believes in them, and he's more likely to be wrong than right about any given subject.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 01:07:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 01:00:56 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:58:03 AM
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.
Would you like to me to clarify something?
No, because I guarantee I know more about half of your claims than you do. Would you like me to clarify why it's ridiculous for you to be an Indopagan and panentheist?
Sure. As a bonus question you can clarify why Discordianism is ridiculous.
Many Veddic traditions are pretty clearly pantheistic. Many have finite deities. Only a relatively small number have panentheistic inclinations, and most of that is modern interpretation. Indopaganism is a grand and foolish attempt to combine all of them into one tradition. Can you simultaneously believe that there are finite gods, a pantheistic god, and a panentheistic god? You can "default" to being panentheistic and that covers all of them right? Wrong. I've meditated with Bhakti, and discussed with them Krishna's place in the universe. They are very different from say, Indian Buddhist ideas of Brahman. Or Shaivists. Or Jaina.
Discordianism is ridiculous because at around the time things like Indopaganism were coming into being because of Western misconceptions about Eastern culture, there was this whole new age revival of pagan ideals. A couple dudes decided to make fun of the new age idiots and included many accurate ideals from Eastern philosophy and religion.
Phox, may I have your babies?
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 01:33:24 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 01:07:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 01:00:56 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 12:58:03 AM
I'm a panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Hinduism).
A simple yes would have sufficed. Though, your claims are getting more and more contradictory.
Would you like to me to clarify something?
No, because I guarantee I know more about half of your claims than you do. Would you like me to clarify why it's ridiculous for you to be an Indopagan and panentheist?
Sure. As a bonus question you can clarify why Discordianism is ridiculous.
Many Veddic traditions are pretty clearly pantheistic. Many have finite deities. Only a relatively small number have panentheistic inclinations, and most of that is modern interpretation. Indopaganism is a grand and foolish attempt to combine all of them into one tradition. Can you simultaneously believe that there are finite gods, a pantheistic god, and a panentheistic god? You can "default" to being panentheistic and that covers all of them right? Wrong. I've meditated with Bhakti, and discussed with them Krishna's place in the universe. They are very different from say, Indian Buddhist ideas of Brahman. Or Shaivists. Or Jaina.
Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern? I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita. What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points. I don't call myself a pantheist. That's your word, not mine. I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite". You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods. Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah. I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.
QuoteDiscordianism is ridiculous because at around the time things like Indopaganism were coming into being because of Western misconceptions about Eastern culture, there was this whole new age revival of pagan ideals. A couple dudes decided to make fun of the new age idiots and included many accurate ideals from Eastern philosophy and religion.
O.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 02:02:04 AM
Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern? I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita. What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points. I don't call myself a pantheist. That's your word, not mine. I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite". You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods. Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah. I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.
No, I'm suggesting that Indopaganism is an amalgamation of ancient and modern interpretations of Vedic religions, which simply doesn't work. The Bhagavad Gita is NOT part of the Rg Veda, though it is considered important in several schools, it would be a smaller number than most people think it is. If you haven't read any other Vedic texts, then you are missing on a great deal of important background and influence on the Gita. But, if you want to be a Bhakti, that's fine with me, but your views are generally inconsistent with theirs. I did use the word pantheist. but that's because a great many more Vedic schools are pantheistic than there are panentheistic ones, and so it IS an important thing to consider before you call yourself Indopagan because those schools are even more influential than the panentheistic ones. Aaaaaannnd then you cross the line into not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Protip: Wikipedia isn't a site on which you should base your understanding.
Also, Indian Buddhists, Shaivists, and Jaina are important and influential in the history of Vedic religions. So... yeah, you should probably take their views into consideration next time you call yourself an Indopagan.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 02:26:51 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 02:02:04 AM
Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern? I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita. What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points. I don't call myself a pantheist. That's your word, not mine. I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite". You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods. Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah. I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.
No, I'm suggesting that Indopaganism is an amalgamation of ancient and modern interpretations of Vedic religions, which simply doesn't work. The Bhagavad Gita is NOT part of the Rg Veda, though it is considered important in several schools, it would be a smaller number than most people think it is. If you haven't read any other Vedic texts, then you are missing on a great deal of important background and influence on the Gita. But, if you want to be a Bhakti, that's fine with me, but your views are generally inconsistent with theirs. I did use the word pantheist. but that's because a great many more Vedic schools are pantheistic than there are panentheistic ones, and so it IS an important thing to consider before you call yourself Indopagan because those schools are even more influential than the panentheistic ones. Aaaaaannnd then you cross the line into not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Protip: Wikipedia isn't a site on which you should base your understanding.
Indopagan is a word that I use to communicate that I practice witchcraft and follow the path of Sanatana Dharma. I haven't read the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Ramayana or any of the other texts and I intend to. In fact, the only Hindu text that I've read is the Baghavad Gita, so I do not generally use the term "Hindu" to describe myself. I am interested in variegated Vedic schools, but not particularly in adhering to one. I follow my own sense of reason, and some day I may find that it corresponds to a specific tradition, but for now I pursue spiritual understanding in the best way that I know how. Less than one year ago I was a militant atheist. The Gita was a major factor in changing my belief system. Presently I'm working on learning as much as I can and establishing a framework with as little confirmation bias as possible. So you undoubtedly know more about Hindusim than I, but my personal beliefs do not need to be consistent with tradition in order to be self-consistent.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:05:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 02:26:51 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 02:02:04 AM
Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern? I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita. What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points. I don't call myself a pantheist. That's your word, not mine. I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite". You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods. Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah. I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.
No, I'm suggesting that Indopaganism is an amalgamation of ancient and modern interpretations of Vedic religions, which simply doesn't work. The Bhagavad Gita is NOT part of the Rg Veda, though it is considered important in several schools, it would be a smaller number than most people think it is. If you haven't read any other Vedic texts, then you are missing on a great deal of important background and influence on the Gita. But, if you want to be a Bhakti, that's fine with me, but your views are generally inconsistent with theirs. I did use the word pantheist. but that's because a great many more Vedic schools are pantheistic than there are panentheistic ones, and so it IS an important thing to consider before you call yourself Indopagan because those schools are even more influential than the panentheistic ones. Aaaaaannnd then you cross the line into not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Protip: Wikipedia isn't a site on which you should base your understanding.
Indopagan is a word that I use to communicate that I practice witchcraft and follow the path of Sanatana Dharma. I haven't read the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Ramayana or any of the other texts and I intend to. In fact, the only Hindu text that I've read is the Baghavad Gita, so I do not generally use the term "Hindu" to describe myself. I am interested in variegated Vedic schools, but not particularly in adhering to one. I follow my own sense of reason, and some day I may find that it corresponds to a specific tradition, but for now I pursue spiritual understanding in the best way that I know how. Less than one year ago I was a militant atheist. The Gita was a major factor in changing my belief system. Presently I'm working on learning as much as I can and establishing a framework with as little confirmation bias as possible. So you undoubtedly know more about Hindusim than I, but my personal beliefs do not need to be consistent with tradition in order to be self-consistent.
Have you ever stared deep into the eyes of a Hindu? Its a life changing experience.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:05:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 02:26:51 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 02:02:04 AM
Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern? I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita. What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points. I don't call myself a pantheist. That's your word, not mine. I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite". You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods. Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah. I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.
No, I'm suggesting that Indopaganism is an amalgamation of ancient and modern interpretations of Vedic religions, which simply doesn't work. The Bhagavad Gita is NOT part of the Rg Veda, though it is considered important in several schools, it would be a smaller number than most people think it is. If you haven't read any other Vedic texts, then you are missing on a great deal of important background and influence on the Gita. But, if you want to be a Bhakti, that's fine with me, but your views are generally inconsistent with theirs. I did use the word pantheist. but that's because a great many more Vedic schools are pantheistic than there are panentheistic ones, and so it IS an important thing to consider before you call yourself Indopagan because those schools are even more influential than the panentheistic ones. Aaaaaannnd then you cross the line into not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Protip: Wikipedia isn't a site on which you should base your understanding.
Indopagan is a word that I use to communicate that I practice witchcraft and follow the path of Sanatana Dharma. I haven't read the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Ramayana or any of the other texts and I intend to. In fact, the only Hindu text that I've read is the Baghavad Gita, so I do not generally use the term "Hindu" to describe myself. I am interested in variegated Vedic schools, but not particularly in adhering to one. I follow my own sense of reason, and some day I may find that it corresponds to a specific tradition, but for now I pursue spiritual understanding in the best way that I know how. Less than one year ago I was a militant atheist. The Gita was a major factor in changing my belief system. Presently I'm working on learning as much as I can and establishing a framework with as little confirmation bias as possible. So you undoubtedly know more about Hindusim than I, but my personal beliefs do not need to be consistent with tradition in order to be self-consistent.
Partly true, at least. But you are still being very self-contradictory, but if you can't see it by now, there's no use in me arguing with you anymore. And, for future reference, Hinduism doesn't exist. It's an inaccurate category used to by Westerners to lump together the Vedic religions. It would be comparable to calling Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "Abrahamism", but it's actually closer to collectively referring to the Native American religions as "Mississippism".
ETA: damn I am having brain problems today...
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 09, 2010, 03:31:07 AM
Have you ever stared deep into the eyes of a Hindu? Its a life changing experience.
:mittens:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 09, 2010, 03:31:07 AM
Have you ever stared deep into the eyes of a Hindu? Its a life changing experience.
Only on days when my girlfriend is Hindu, and I'd agree.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:32:43 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:05:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 02:26:51 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 02:02:04 AM
Are you suggesting that modern interpretation is incorrect because it's modern? I haven't studied religion or philosophy in a scholarly environment for 3 years, but I've read the Baghavad Gita. What I take from it doesn't have to be what anyone else takes from it in order to develop a consistent understanding, which it probably isn't at some points. I don't call myself a pantheist. That's your word, not mine. I believe there are "finite gods" in the sense that I believe you and I are "finite". You and I emanate from Brahman but are distinct from one another; so too are the gods. Figuratively speaking, we are all different facets of the same citrine merkabah. I am not an Indian Buddhist or a Shaivist or a Jain.
No, I'm suggesting that Indopaganism is an amalgamation of ancient and modern interpretations of Vedic religions, which simply doesn't work. The Bhagavad Gita is NOT part of the Rg Veda, though it is considered important in several schools, it would be a smaller number than most people think it is. If you haven't read any other Vedic texts, then you are missing on a great deal of important background and influence on the Gita. But, if you want to be a Bhakti, that's fine with me, but your views are generally inconsistent with theirs. I did use the word pantheist. but that's because a great many more Vedic schools are pantheistic than there are panentheistic ones, and so it IS an important thing to consider before you call yourself Indopagan because those schools are even more influential than the panentheistic ones. Aaaaaannnd then you cross the line into not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Protip: Wikipedia isn't a site on which you should base your understanding.
Indopagan is a word that I use to communicate that I practice witchcraft and follow the path of Sanatana Dharma. I haven't read the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Ramayana or any of the other texts and I intend to. In fact, the only Hindu text that I've read is the Baghavad Gita, so I do not generally use the term "Hindu" to describe myself. I am interested in variegated Vedic schools, but not particularly in adhering to one. I follow my own sense of reason, and some day I may find that it corresponds to a specific tradition, but for now I pursue spiritual understanding in the best way that I know how. Less than one year ago I was a militant atheist. The Gita was a major factor in changing my belief system. Presently I'm working on learning as much as I can and establishing a framework with as little confirmation bias as possible. So you undoubtedly know more about Hindusim than I, but my personal beliefs do not need to be consistent with tradition in order to be self-consistent.
Partly true, at least. But you are still being very self-contradictory, but if you can't see it by now, there's no use in me arguing with you anymore. And, for future reference, Hinduism doesn't exist. It's an inaccurate category used to by Westerners to lump together the Vedic religions. It would be comparable to calling Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "Abrahamism", but it's actually closer to collectively referring to the Native American religions as "Mississippism".
ETA: damn I am having brain problems today...
I don't always mean to be. Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist. My closest friend is Hindu. I understand that it's a broad category though.
I believe in my soul.
Just not yours.
I posit that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience. This life is no more than a blip on the radar.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
I don't always mean to be. Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist. My closest friend is Hindu. I understand that it's a broad category though.
And there's the proof that you didn't listen to a word I said. Oh well.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
I don't always mean to be. Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist. My closest friend is Hindu. I understand that it's a broad category though.
And there's the proof that you didn't listen to a word I said. Oh well.
painful isn't it?
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
I don't always mean to be. Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist. My closest friend is Hindu. I understand that it's a broad category though.
And there's the proof that you didn't listen to a word I said. Oh well.
It's definitely proof that I don't entirely agree with you.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 09, 2010, 03:54:32 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
I don't always mean to be. Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist. My closest friend is Hindu. I understand that it's a broad category though.
And there's the proof that you didn't listen to a word I said. Oh well.
painful isn't it?
I'm a philosophy/classics major in Southern Illinois, which might as well be Kentucky as far as culture. I'm pretty used to this sort of thing by now. :lol:
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:55:28 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
I don't always mean to be. Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist. My closest friend is Hindu. I understand that it's a broad category though.
And there's the proof that you didn't listen to a word I said. Oh well.
It's definitely proof that I don't entirely agree with you.
You admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.
Did I accidentally post in the middle of a pissing contest?
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 03:59:41 AM
Did I accidentally post in the middle of a pissing contest?
Yes, you did Charley. :lol:
S'okay though, I agree with you that this thing we call life is an extension of a greater spiritual existence.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 04:01:23 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 03:59:41 AM
Did I accidentally post in the middle of a pissing contest?
Yes, you did Charley. :lol:
S'okay though, I agree with you that this thing we call life is an extension of a greater spiritual existence.
Extension? No. It's a step. One of many IMO.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 03:59:41 AM
Did I accidentally post in the middle of a pissing contest?
Worse, a
furry pissing contest.
i think there is no soul. there is a brain. it does stuff. you die and brain stuff dies. the end.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AMYou admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.
Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right? Here's a hint: No.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 04:08:33 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AMYou admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.
Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right? Here's a hint: No.
Good grief. 10 primates and 12 different opinions.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 04:08:33 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AMYou admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.
Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right? Here's a hint: No.
:lol:
Okay. If you say so, though I don't really see how Hinduism can be misunderstood and still refer to a single religion.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 04:08:33 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AMYou admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.
Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right? Here's a hint: No.
What is it about wolf people man?
Why are they all idiots?
This is now crossed over to stupid.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 04:14:26 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 04:08:33 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AMYou admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.
Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right? Here's a hint: No.
:lol:
Okay. If you say so, though I don't really see how Hinduism can be misunderstood and still refer to a single religion.
Did I state that Hinduism refers to a single religion? And I do use the term "Abrahamic religion".
Seriously. Are yuo guys arguing over which Fairy Tale is best? FFS, go get a drink.
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 04:17:17 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 04:14:26 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 04:08:33 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AMYou admit ignorance, yet still think you're right and I'm wrong because your friend refers to his/herself as Hindu. Because obviously, your friend knows more about it than someone who studies it. Right.
Do I have to think you're wrong to think I'm right? Here's a hint: No.
:lol:
Okay. If you say so, though I don't really see how Hinduism can be misunderstood and still refer to a single religion.
Did I state that Hinduism refers to a single religion? And I do use the term "Abrahamic religion".
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 09, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
I don't always mean to be. Hinduism exists insofar as Hindus perceive it to exist. My closest friend is Hindu. I understand that it's a broad category though.
Then what do you mean by this? Hindus
don't perceive Hinduism to exist, because what we refer to as "Hinduism" includes Buddhism, as well as many other seperate religions. Do you call a Catholic an Abrahamist?
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:19:21 AM
Seriously. Are yuo guys arguing over which Fairy Tale is best? FFS, go get a drink.
No. We're arguing over semantics. :lol:
Arguing over semantics is like beating a limp dick, nothing is going to happen.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:25:44 AM
Arguing over semantics is like beating a limp dick, nothing is going to happen.
At this point, I'm just entertaining myself. :lol:
But I''m done for tonight. Though I will address your comment about a step along the way: That's interesting. I would definitely like to hear more of what you have to say on the matter. Is that something you might discuss in your book?
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 04:29:07 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:25:44 AM
Arguing over semantics is like beating a limp dick, nothing is going to happen.
At this point, I'm just entertaining myself. :lol:
But I''m done for tonight. Though I will address your comment about a step along the way: That's interesting. I would definitely like to hear more of what you have to say on the matter. Is that something you might discuss in your book?
No, not in my first book. I will say that I believe it's not the first step and certainly not the last. The real beauty is that we don't know, as it should be.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:25:44 AM
Arguing over semantics is like beating a limp dick, nothingchaffing is going to happen.
fixed
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:20:08 PM
GO MATTER! IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY!
\
:bsex:
This was the best thing I read all night. :lulz:
RE: OP
all matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration (thank you, Tool). so your soul isn't destroyed at death, just rearranged. the only thing you lose when you die is whatever part of you that senses, thinks, plans, dreams, remembers, feels emotion, and is afraid to die. so death isn't the end, it's just the end for you. your soul is blissfully unaware of any of this, and when you die it will just dissipate into the atmosphere and become one with the Universe.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AM
I'm a philosophy/classics major
I'd like to help you get a head start on your post-college career, so I'm letting you know now that I would indeed like fries with that.
Quote from: ☂ Kim Jong Fred ☂ on October 09, 2010, 04:04:47 AM
i think there is no soul. there is a brain. it does stuff. you die and brain stuff dies. the end.
THIS.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 18, 2010, 01:47:30 AM
Quote from: ☂ Kim Jong Fred ☂ on October 09, 2010, 04:04:47 AM
i think there is no soul. there is a brain. it does stuff. you die and brain stuff dies. the end.
THIS.
I don't usually phrase my beliefs this bluntly, because I know some people take this stuff all serious-like and being blunt sometimes invites an actual discussion on the matter (which I normally seek to avoid), but... yeah, throwing my lot in with this.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 18, 2010, 01:46:04 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 03:59:30 AM
I'm a philosophy/classics major
I'd like to help you get a head start on your post-college career, so I'm letting you know now that I would indeed like fries with that.
I'll send those to you overnight. COD. :lulz:
Quote from: vexati0n on October 18, 2010, 01:39:15 AM
RE: OP
all matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration (thank you, Tool). so your soul isn't destroyed at death, just rearranged. the only thing you lose when you die is whatever part of you that senses, thinks, plans, dreams, remembers, feels emotion, and is afraid to die. so death isn't the end, it's just the end for you. your soul is blissfully unaware of any of this, and when you die it will just dissipate into the atmosphere and become one with the Universe.
The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak.
Quote from: vexati0n on October 18, 2010, 01:39:15 AM
RE: OP
all matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration (thank you, Tool). so your soul isn't destroyed at death, just rearranged. the only thing you lose when you die is whatever part of you that senses, thinks, plans, dreams, remembers, feels emotion, and is afraid to die. so death isn't the end, it's just the end for you. your soul is blissfully unaware of any of this, and when you die it will just dissipate into the atmosphere and become one with the Universe.
i was right there with you until the "become one with" ... technically aren't we already 'one with' ? well i guess if that was true it would create true responsibility ... fuck all that noise.
I believe in reincarnation, but not of our mind or soul or stuff like that. I don't believe in a soul as to some part of us that gets separated from the body after death, but I believe that the elements that compose our body, after we die go to the composition of other living beings after our body gets eaten by the worms and the worms get eaten by whatever eats worms etc.
Quote from: Telarus on October 09, 2010, 12:04:18 AM
Cuddlefish are thoughtforms.
I AM NOT A THOUGHTFORMS! WAIT... MAYBE I AM...
FUCK YOU, YOU JUST RUINED MY DAY!!!!!!!
"Make me one with everything"
:rimshot:
:mittens:
:lol:
HAHAH that was wonderful :mittens: