Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2233028 -

some interesting reading:

http://www.panspermia.org/intro.htm

The first point, which deals with the origin of life on Earth, is known as panspermia ? literally, "seeds everywhere." Its earliest recorded advocate was the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, who influenced Socrates. However, Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation came to be preferred by science for more than two thousand years. Then on April 9, 1864, French chemist Louis Pasteur announced his great experiment disproving spontaneous generation as it was then held to occur

elsewhere on that site:

People like to say, as if it were obvious, that life is hard to define. This is misleading. Life has properties that clearly distinguish it from everything else. Every living thing is cellular. In other words, it is either a single-celled creature or a creature composed of biological cells. Every cell is bounded by its own outer membrane and contains a full set of instructions necessary for its operation and reproduction. Furthermore, every cell uses the same operating system: "DNA makes RNA makes protein." DNA is a long complex molecule that contains the cell's instructions. It is transcribed into RNA, another long complex molecule similar to DNA; and then the RNA transcript is translated into protein. There are hundreds of billions of different proteins used by living things (3), but all of them are made from the same twenty amino acids, the "building blocks of life."

living things differ radically in kind from non-living things, but all life is of the same essence. there are only variations in degree but the resulting emergent properties of such variations can often confuse people into thinking that there are radical differences in kind. they are basing their arguments on these manifest properties and not on their underlying factors which only vary in degree.

theres lots of great info on that site and a fascinating new (or maybe not so new) theory which dovetails nicely with neo-Darwinism.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2233549 -

Wow, a real philosophical debate.. if only I had some background in it, I'd join in and kick all of your asses. :grin:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: fireworks_god]
    #2233848 -

FG, you ought to join us.  I think three of us discussing this would be extra cool. :smile:

We don't have many discussions like this in here unfortunately.

Without iG and myself we probably wouldn't have this one.

:lol:

Come on!  What have you got to lose?  Start where I am asking:

Quote:
Descartes thought that each person consisted of two parts, a body and a soul. The relationship they had to each other was like a rower and his rowboat.

Is this correct or incorrect?

Why?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2233895 -

DNA: BIOS

The Body and Viscera: The Hardware and Case

The Brain: The Operating System (WinXP, Linux, etc)

The Soul: The Power (or electricity, so to speak)

:wink:


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2233967 -

evolution

fossil

I typed out an entire paragraph but the computer ate it.  Basically I said that I am not here to discuss evolution.  I am here to have a philosophical discussion.  If you aren't interested in a philosophical discussion we don't have to have one and we can stop right now.  I really despise discussing tangential issues even like this one.  They bore me to tears.  Besides the fact that I have never had a discussion about evolution that ended well.  They just aren't worth having for me.

well he does spend a large portion of the essay directly attacking evolution and those who believe it.

It is statements like that one that really make me wonder if it is worth it for me to continue this.  Your perception is a little biased.  I reread the author's article specifically looking for the portions that directly mentioned evolution or should be considered an "attack".  Here is what I found:

The article contained 192 sentences and 95 paragraphs.  In it the word 'evolution' or used 'evolution' as a part of a word consisted of exactly 4 times.  Darwin was mentioned once.

There were 15 sentences that "attacked evolution" directly, and 2 full paragraphs with the other sentences sprinkled here and there.

That's a "large portion"?  Not in my book, or anyone else's either for that matter.

I think a Nobel prize winner would know what he's talking about.

Really?

"Experts" have had as many flawed ideas as anyone else.  They aren't immune to illogical thinking.  There is a logical fallacy specifically directed at "appeal to authority".  It doesn't matter what "position" they hold. It only matters whether what they say is logical.  I expect such blind following from a "believer", not from you. (no personal attack meant nor implied)

I'm perfectly willing to change my mind if presented with a compelling argument.

We will see if that is true for you and me.  So far we haven't proceeded that far. :smile:

I think being closed minded is saying that anyone who believes in evolution is a "materialist".

Way off base there I am afraid.  Your lack of familiarity with philosophy is showing.  (no personal attack meant nor implied)

there are no presuppositions in science, except one...

Completely incorrect.  Would you like me to list a few?

Here are seven:

1.  It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations.


2.  Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory -- an event which would have refuted the theory.


3.  Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. [note 1]


4.  A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.


5.  Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testabilty: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.


6.  Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. ...


7.  Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers -- for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or be re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later [after 1920 -NS] described such a rescuing operation as a `conventionalist twist' or a `conventionalist stratagem'.) [note 2]

Taken from: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/popper.htm

I could have listed dozens.

it was you who labeled me a materialist because of my beliefs.

Nope.  Your perception is a little off again I think.  I never said you were a 'materialist'.  I only said you seemed like one iirc.

I think I know where you're going with this, but you won't get anywhere with this line of thinking.

And I think I also know where you are going as well.  But neither statement helps the discussion as far as I can see.  And this goes for all the preceding statements I have made in this post so far.

I am not interested in any 'rebuttal' to my preceding statements either.  I only want to know if you want to continue this.

Do you want to hear the second position?  (The first one was Descartes')

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #2233973 -

That is certainly a conclusion to an argument. Only a detailed philosophical examination would reveal if it is accurate. The discussion I am trying to have would by its nature address those points because they are important.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2234389 -

Mr_Mushrooms said:
Come on!  What have you got to lose?  Start where I am asking:

Quote:
Descartes thought that each person consisted of two parts, a body and a soul. The relationship they had to each other was like a rower and his rowboat.

Is this correct or incorrect?

Why?





Well, see, I just don't have any of the structured knowledge in this subject to be able to really make my points known, so all I have is my own thoughts on the mattter. And, since you asked, those would be: :grin:

I don't know, I guess I would have to think about vegetables in a hospital.. machines are sustaining their life, physically they ARE alive, however, there is no thought, there is no consciousness... the boat is still there, still active, but there is no one there rowing...

Myself, I would lean towards the belief of the mind being seperate from the body, but I couldn't really say either way.. Hhm... I just see that there is this spark, this point of light, this energy that is what gave us the ability to be conscious...

I don't know, there is this unspeakable understanding that is just there, every single moment revolves around it... I mean, life, for god sakes.  :grin:

Hehe, see, no real structure in organized thought, doesn't do one any good in disucssions such as these...  :smirk: Actually, I have some Norwegian I should be learning, so I am off for now.
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2234712 -

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Descartes thought that each person consisted of two parts, a body and a soul. The relationship they had to each other was like a rower and his rowboat.

Is this correct or incorrect?

Why?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the answer has something to to do with going around in circles when you have an oar out of the water. :rolleyes:

Descartes thought that the body could do some things in response to stimuli, by itself. He thought the body could communicate information with the soul through the pineal gland and the reverse was true, that the soul could communicate through the pineal gland with the body.

he proposed a  way in which the rowing gets done, wacky

He also beleived that only humans had a pineal gland.

Is this correct or incorrect?
It is correct.

Why,  thats tough if you can answer that, you have answered why thinking is more than instinctual reponse to stimuli.  And once you do that you leave open the possiblility that the soul exists independently of the body and yet connected to it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: falcon]
    #2234748 -

Hey, thanks for answering.  That's a pretty good answer too.

The argument I am using says this:

If the mind and the brain are completely separate we have a few difficulties to explain.  If the brain is the rowboat where is the rower when the brain shuts down, as in asleep?  And I think the second argument against it is devastating.  We all know that brain injuries or defects affect our ability to think.  If the mind isn't somewhat dependent on the brain how could this be?  There are also reports of neurological surgery that tell of electrical stimulation producing conscious experiences.  If Descartes were right that could not happen.  Evidently he must be wrong.

It seems like, as you said, Descartes had one oar in the water on this one.

:lol:

For those that are interested here's a cool link that explains his thinking about this  click here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2234843 -

I typed out an entire paragraph but the computer ate it. Basically I said that I am not here to discuss evolution. I am here to have a philosophical discussion. If you aren't interested in a philosophical discussion we don't have to have one and we can stop right now.

so you've just decided that you don't want to discuss evolution at all? why is that? does it challenge your pet beliefs so much that you refuse to even consider it?

and evolution is not a tangential issue here. it is central to the argument: if evolution is true, what you're saying cannot be. I think you know this, and you understand why this is.. could this be the reason you don't want to discuss evolution?

The article contained 192 sentences and 95 paragraphs. In it the word 'evolution' or used 'evolution' as a part of a word consisted of exactly 4 times. Darwin was mentioned once.

:rolleyes: geez, there's no need to count words. if anyone is interested in reading it, they can do so for themselves and understand what is being said there, and how it relates to evolution and the origins of man. it doesn't matter how many times a certain word appears there, I undertand that his essay refutes the theory of evolution (do you deny this?) because it must, otherwise, all the other things he says can't be true.

"Experts" have had as many flawed ideas as anyone else. They aren't immune to illogical thinking. There is a logical fallacy specifically directed at "appeal to authority". It doesn't matter what "position" they hold. It only matters whether what they say is logical. I expect such blind following from a "believer", not from you. (no personal attack meant nor implied)

lol. I see that your perception is a little off here. that was not an "appeal to authority". the logical fallacy you are referring to only applies when an appeal to authority comprises the argument. that's not the case here, I already covered the reasons why the expert was not contradicting himself. if I had said "because he's a Nobel prize winner" you might have a point but I gave other reasons, you did read them didn't you?

Completely incorrect. Would you like me to list a few?

Here are seven:

:lol: you honestly don't think those are presuppositions in the scientific method do you? do you know what a presupposition is?

not this:
"Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is."
yeah right. this is a presupposition in the scientific method? where does he come up with this crap?

nor this:
"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it".
well DUH! but how is this a presupposition?

sounds more like a list of reasons why this particular philosopher dislikes science.

"Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers -- for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or be re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation."

LOL. this isn't a pressuposition either but it's a nice summation of this discussion, especially this part "or be[sic] re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation." evolution refutes the idea that man is radically different in kind from animals, so how to escape this? don't discuss evolution! I'm gonna re-frame this as a philosophical discussion, so I'm not interested in physical evidence! :lol: ah, open minded inquiry...

We will see if that is true for you and me. So far we haven't proceeded that far

why must we take such a circuitous route? is a Q&A session really necessary? I do not want to answer any inane questions or take a primer in philosophy. please just lay out your position in its entirety in a clear, concise manner as I have done. and provide us with supporting evidence and walk us through the logical steps. you've been beating around the bush for a while now, alluding to some great truth just beyond our grasp, well out with it! I feel like we're on the verge here and you're holding out on us. we're all dying to hear.

I am not interested in any 'rebuttal' to my preceding statements either. I only want to know if you want to continue this.

as I already said, I'm interested to see where this goes, but I'm starting to wonder if you really want to continue, or if you're just searching for some face-saving way out of this, because I've been asking for your position for several posts now and you've only been squirreling around, making vague allusions, ducking direct questions and throwing in subtle insults here and there. I'd prefer it if you would just give us a straightforward answer.

Do you want to hear the second position? (The first one was Descartes')

no. I do not want to hear your argument piecemeal. please present it in it's entirety for all to see.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2234863 -

no. I do not want to hear your argument piecemeal. please present it in it's entirety for all to see.

Ok, that works for me.  I want to look at each piece of it one at a time and discuss it because it is more focused that way.  You aren't interested in agreeing to anything that might cause you to change what you believe.

But, that's cool with me.  :thumbup:

Btw, I was only looking for an answer to my last statement so I didn't bother to read the rest of what you typed.

Nice chatting with you. :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2234872 -

so I see. we won't get to hear this "great truth" oh well. it seems my prediction was correct...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2234878 -

And so was mine.

Enjoy your new rating. :smile:  :thumbup:

HA HA HA! :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2234887 -

not that this discussion wasn't productive or anything, but you disappoint me. after all the buildup, I thought I'd get something. could it be that there is nothing there? what a tease...

and if you only want to share your knowledge in a certain way, that's fine. but truth should stand on it's own shouldn't it? what do you have to fear?

it was nice chatting with you too and I'm glad to see you posting in this forum again.

PS: your rating of me says more about you than it says about me :shocked:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Totem animals...
( 1 2 3 all )		 HypnoToad 4,728 43 05/13/04 09:52 PM
by TinTree
* A quote on man and dolphins Adamist 1,224 14 12/29/02 08:49 AM
by FreakQlibrium
* The ability to conceptualize
( 1 2 all )		 TrueBrode 4,209 27 01/18/04 01:05 PM
by jpod
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,163 3 05/03/04 08:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Animal Empathy? RebelSteve33 888 2 02/12/03 09:37 AM
by adrug
* Concept of soul mates
( 1 2 all )		 cleaner 3,741 28 09/02/03 06:33 AM
by TrippeeChik
* Dolphins
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Adamist 7,126 86 09/30/02 01:04 AM
by Anonymous
* Power o Now (Tolle) - Animals don't need Therapy
( 1 2 3 all )		 lucid 3,767 43 12/31/03 05:19 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,747 topic views. 0 members, 120 guests and 30 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.