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

Kratom Eye
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: Scarfmeister]
    #3020195 -

ok then if thoughts come from you. can you prove they come from you???? or your being????

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: trendal]
    #3020218 -

ya, good point on how to approach consciousness. I cannot imagine the CNS, though an extension of the brain, underlying consciousness. I believe nearly all conscious "transmittion" occurs in the cerebral cortex, as all neuronal stimuli terminate there in what appears obviously what's intended such as an auditory or visual cortex, and occassionally when situations warrant, associative cortex tissue in the cerebral cortex. Everything involved with the CNS is influenced indirectly by conscious, voluntary action, where someone cannot voluntarily alter their blood beat, pressure, diaphragm spasming, salivation, tearing, etcetera. Also, your input on skepticism really highlights the hypotheses involved in calculations in science and mathematics (such as imaginary numbers, where I couldn't imagine application other than perhaps shadows or antimatter), and I consider it necessary to fuel necessary progress in fields of philosophy. What is also true is people hear what they want to hear and intend others to hear what's intended by themselves, and most of the casual philosophies are weakly supported. I wouldn't believe myself if I proved I didn't exist, but I believe in such hypothetical convictions as dark matter, and I do always wonder what lies at nuclei of atoms.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: trendal]
    #3020262 -

for you trendal
we don't have enough infomation or data to come to a conclusion to where thoughts are situated or where they come from or what not, but the basis of a of a skeptic is to beleive the "real" and have "factual" evidence to prove something exsists. but if they can't prove where thoughts come from, how can they prove if someting exsists???

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020279 -

Of course i cant prove it. Thats like saying can you prove that you are all not simulations that i have created in my sim universe program?

Its not very likely that there is an entity that feeds every person on earth his thoughts.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020281 -

?
By getting more data.

They may not be very good at creating theories, collecting data or interpretting it, but they sure as hell won't be convinced easily

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Scarfmeister]
    #3020305 -

i have a theory that all thoughts knowledge emotions already exsist. and the way we work is just like our sight we only see the colours that aren't reflected in the spectrum of light. maybe our mind works like that too.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: vampirism]
    #3020334 -

For me its a matter of what evidence is currently available. Even if we can only support a theory with a minuscule amount of evidence ill take that theory before i take a crackpot alien or god theory.

Yeah so the theory of evolution is flawed like hell but it still beats the shit out of the creation myth. Shit no one can claim to know ANYTHING with absolute 100% certainty, but if it sounds reasonable based on the facts and empirical evidence we have at our disposal ill choose to believe that theory over the others. When new facts surface i may reevaluate my believes.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020346 -

At least thats an interesting theory.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020349 -

this i don't believe you can answer. It's like asking, "who exactly am i?" It's distrubingly impossible to explain in words the machinery involving consciousness. You can look at it in two ways. Consciousness is an illusion: it's a byproduct of the cerebral cortex which just so happens to star you due to some unknown physical effect and the fact that this entity is an individual. In this case every single choice, always fully rapid fire, can be explained by classical conditioning. Based on this belief, putting a replication of yourself in identical situations throughout life would occur coincidental with your equal other. It's just we don't got the technology to elaborately monitor all molecular events in the brain. Or you can percieve consciousness as an entirely invisible source. Some universal connection allows constant input and output. Whether the source is situated hyperdimensionally, unphysically, or just as another dark energy of psychological proportion, it's there. We do not know as of yet if and what influence the conscious source returns to the brain itself. This particular hypothesis (skepticism) opens possiblities of religious convictions. Nonetheless, it lies in those two extremes, conscience is nothing, not discovered, or hyperdimensional basicly speaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Scarfmeister]
    #3020354 -

well no, it just means that
a) you rely on "common sense"
b) you do not believe the evidence presented in favor of the theories rejected by a)

what if creation happened first at some level, then evolution was just a natural process that developed? Clay aggregates, clay aggregates..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Scarfmeister]
    #3020404 -

Evolution is such an obvious theory that I too believe it, no doubt. Still, the possiblities of religion shouldn't be thrown erroroneos. I mean, I personally am not a real Christian, but with whatever statement god threw to create man could've been a sentence scaling over the course of all of man's heridity. What I find pathetic is where Christians proclaim microevolution factual and macroevolution fictitious. Fucking christ, we see this shit and they don't believe it. We see dark energy affecting cosmic structure but so many pass it as bullshit. They're technically assuming circa is stated in every page where obviously it's not. Truely, anything practical's possible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: vampirism]
    #3020413 -

I will at least look and evaluate any theory that is presented in a professional manner by a real scientist. Not some crackhead basement scientist claiming zeta reticulum waves are being fed to us trough the TV. Unless of course he can actually get his findings verified by some neutral third party.

I mean the big bang theory actually holds some water and parts of it can be "proved" scientifically. The creation myth on the other hand doesn't have a single shred of evidence to support it. Just saying that something had to be catalyst at the creation of the universe just doesn't do it for me. Sure I'm as stumped as the next guy but it doesn't lead me to believe in a higher power.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020480 -

spudmore: we are all skeptics, you are trying to catagorize people, and it doesn't work well. you are skeptical yourself and have shown a lot of it throught your post.

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

maybe so, but what about conscious awareness. the fact that the brain grew tremendously in size is something evolution has yet to prove. the why question...and that's something to at least consider.


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: vampirism]
    #3020508 -

clay aggregates? you're speaking of man out of dust? well, yes given that extensive time encompassing including change provides radiation to give the possiblity come to think of it.
Anyway, I don't believe you negated my previous statement, repeating a brief summary, but as for creation, I don't believe initial creation of anything lies in time. I mean, yes, of course spacetime had its initiation at some point which may be the big bang, but nonetheless time has always been there. What would you ask existance to become of that? Well, I'll ask, has anyone ever considered outer forces of the universe? Before anything began, god knows what existance was. Sure enough what would be of the universe would be total chaos. And who knows, with gravitational fields given at the focal point of the event horizon of a black hole at some point, say a virtual electron and a virtual positron, possible in zero space-time, normally colliding upon itself, would become ripped apart. Well, this is merely theoretical, but my point's to consider what you may have not, and it sure would seem more random that some big bang occured spontaneosly than if with time existing, events led up to the creation of all this matter and the possibility to create the wavelike photon, what we call electromagnetivity, in the ether like reality of spacetime. Hmm, I believe this thread is struggling coherence with the subject matter, but philosophy's philosophy. Anyway, I actually try to believe in what Christianity claims, where I don't believe in luck, but I'm open to opinion. God damning astronomy and comprehension's gotta be a bad move.

kaio, you don't believe the brain developed to become as it was? We call that about 7 layers of neocortical tissue. Consider this, 98% of DNA is dormant

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: kaiowas]
    #3020554 -

sorry kaiowas
i was trying to get into a skeptics frame of mind even though i exageratted alot i could always see that. but i have seen some people go to extremes and argue to the ends of earth just to prove a point about something that they cannot understand
i am just trying to understand how skeptics how they justify their conclusions when there is no concrete evidence of anything, especially consciousness or thoughts, since thoughts are of human nature yet these people have yet to discover if they exsist or exsist the way we speculate about them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: Scarfmeister]
    #3020560 -

well thats your own prejudice ( just or not, i dont care ) speaking. "real scientists" eh? The kind funded by giant corporations for a purpose? Or maybe the kind that will do anything to get noticed publicly? Sorry, there are no "altruistic" scientists who come out with theories.


The big bang theory *isnt* proven, there is circumstancial evidence for it yes. Not less substantial than UFO sightings - keep that in mind. Recently the big bang theory came under fire, and for good reason - "real scientists" are accepting it as fact ( as actual scientists should never do ) and basing all of their "factual" theories on that faulty theory.


The creation theory DOES have major evidence - ie, your existence. The big bang supports creationism - its the theory of choice for Catholics, btw ( officially accepted a while ago, whaddaya know? )

mrbadguy ill get to your post tomorrow

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020569 -

or even why they exist...try and ask questions, and sometimes the wquestions themselves will provide the simple answer of "I don't know."

it's all good to say "I don't know"

I being a skeptic, as we all are (nod to swami for that idea) I can too say I don't know. 

but I will jsut go one step further and say

it is interesting that we can't answer anything about the origin of pure self awareness.  where thoughts come from, etc.

t's jsut as easy to say what  isn't as it is to say what  is

btw, no need to apologize at all!!!  you are jsut being yourself,  and keep on rockin like you are :thumbup:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: spudamore]
    #3020577 -

lol, these posts are all because Swami's sarcasm.

The mind of a skeptic: organization of information and rationalize it. The mind fears what it does not know, therefore fear nothing and learn all you can. Its a true and tried system :smile:


--------------------
As the life of a candle,
my wick will burn out.
But, the fire of my mind
shall beam into infinite.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: kaiowas]
    #3020586 -

i have said that before
i don't know anything
because i truely don't
but to those that dismiss other peoples theories, faith and beleifs is to dismiss the every being you are

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for the skeptics [Re: psyka]
    #3020614 -

oi, mind of a skeptic: quasi-reflective
*

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. 0 members, 2 guests and 13 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 0.027 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.