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

PlanetSpores.ca
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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Mrbadguy]
    #3019474 -

i would like to hear what these so called "skeptics think"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3019495 -

.
Your sensing organs send things back to your brain. Your brain's molecular processes .. well, process the nueral signals. Thought is the evolutionary process algorithm that *happens* to have evolved ( evolution is neat, as well as selection ). Your consciousness is the execution of said algorithm.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: vampirism]
    #3019514 -

two-bit

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3019518 -

I think you're mistaking skeptics as materialists.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: ]
    #3019530 -

could be but
the majority of skpetics beleive in facts or things that you can only prove.

Edited by spudamore (08/18/04 07:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3019555 -

bub, the human mind has infinite capability given imagination. Our mental space is capable of all variability. I fail to understand if you're just asking for any nonsense input?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Mrbadguy]
    #3019583 -

just trying to show that there are big flaws in skepticism especially the hard arses. i think you know the ones i am talking about but i will mention no names as it could cause to offend. there could be big flaws in all my beleifs and faith but i am willing to except that possiblity.
if a skeptic beleives in a proven fact. is it in fact really proven???? because they beleive in their thought, but they can't prove where thoughts or mind come from only how we react to them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3019649 -

hahaha, kudos buddy. We got all these fucking theories and hypotheses. No wonder so much recorrectioning occurs on stuff not even worthy of true merit. When taking anything into account, the solid difference is the words comperhension and apprehension. When there's any apprehension involved, the guy's diluted, respectively. Yeah, I hate that shit too, unless of course the theory is blatantly obvious, such as the trichromatic theory in color vision, or dark energy with neutrinos and all that ominous matter. Nonetheless, you guys know who you are. :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Mrbadguy]
    #3019802 -

i would to know if a skeptic would even wonder this though???

Edited by spudamore (08/18/04 08:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Mrbadguy]
    #3019842 -

two-bit?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: vampirism]
    #3019845 -

two-bit??????

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3019947 -

i was replying to him, because he replied to my longer last post, "two-bit"
As if I did not differentiate between realities..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: vampirism]
    #3019980 -

two bit, I was referring to stating consciousness as only a dialectal process. Yes, but not all conscious application is rational, and speaking on a broader sense consciousness applies to many aspects such as perception, emotion and the such, respectively

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3019996 -

Cognition (at the basic level) is so complex that scientists haven't really fully understood it yet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: TheChiaPetFarmer]
    #3020034 -

Of course, cause the human brain at the cellular level is far too unique amongst everyone due to plasticity. Brain waves and PET scans or whatever method for analyzing brain activity provides results showing only corelation. Mapping the brain has been strenuous enough, and comprehending its true nature is currently impossible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Mrbadguy]
    #3020064 -

agreed, but those are internal intricacies. None of that matters to me about *your* brain, discounting anticipation of your reactions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020121 -

Where do thoughts come from, if anywhere, where is it situated, what is its parameters, and is there any scientific or physical facts or data to show this????

There is not enough current data to make anything close to what I consider a satisfactory conclusion with respect to "the consciousness question".

The data would tend to suggest that our thoughts (and consciousness) arise from the functioning of our brain/CNS. Beyond that, I cannot say any more.

Which brings a point: being a skeptic means not jumping to conclusions without the right amount of data. A skeptic could not answer your question, because the necessary data has not been found yet. If anyone claims to be a skeptic yet has an "answer" to your question...I would say they are fooling themselves and need to re-evaluate their notion of skepticism.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: vampirism]
    #3020146 -

For the sake of the matter, yes, anything effecting dialectal reasoning plays insignificant, and as you said the intricacy seems to push ten-fold considering this is a message board. Personally I feel emotions are an evolutionary drawback for humans nowadays. The emotional region of the brain is more of reptilian ancenstry, and thus ancient. Most dysfunction socially today is based on emotion, such as domestic disputes and petty quarrels, and it's not suprising how often someone cooled off after such an incident resolves the problem with rational, or more basicly put, dialectal reasoning. I have to ask you, what exactly the anticipation of a response was concerning?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020164 -

what do you mean where do thoughts come from? They come from me, not god or anything else. Its really no different from an animal who on an instinctual level "think" that he is hungry and must eat. Multiply that animals IQ by 100 and you have a human reflecting upon what he should eat and what would taste good.

Its not like thoughts where magically introduced to us at some point.


--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Mrbadguy]
    #3020166 -

taking into consideration the existence of others.
IE, not purely, directly selfish concerns.

Myself, I believe that emotions should be embraced more these days, but with tolerance not shown by logic. The problem with logic is that it is just as easily changed and manipulated as emotions are, but it has a sharper blade. Really, logic is just a bunch of bridges.. not much else

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

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* In regards to skepticism
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 Thanatos10 4,264 188 11/23/17 03:59 AM
by Frenetic Zetetic
* Spacetime Path Ravus 741 7 02/06/06 09:44 PM
by it stars saddam
* Skeptics mushiemountain 1,622 10 03/30/07 08:45 AM
by redgreenvines
* Skeptic vs Believer -- IRC Chat log nubious 1,210 5 08/19/09 11:56 AM
by Sobe Arush
* Gadflies Without a Sting: The Downside of Skepticism - Deepak Chopra RRRR 1,136 2 08/11/06 07:06 AM
by Huehuecoyotl
* Birth of a Skeptic
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Swami 7,104 84 02/05/04 07:47 AM
by trendal
* What Is A Skeptic?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Sclorch 5,528 45 04/16/04 12:35 PM
by Anonymous
* Skepticism is self-destructive
( 1 2 all )		 exclusive58 3,934 36 05/11/05 05:30 PM
by Phluck

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,271 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 19 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 4.518 seconds spending 1.403 seconds on 16 queries.