Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4046624 - 04/12/05 03:28 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

single duality.. :P


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


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Icelander]
    #4046649 - 04/12/05 03:33 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
3. Love is a great ideal  but it isn't solving most of our great dilemmas such as where to get more oil, and how to fix social security, or even how to fix a car for that matter... next time someone tells you that love is everything, ask them how love will find us more oil, and how love will fix SS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with the above only in the sense that Love is not being tried on these problems. Most of these problems are the result of a lack of love IMO. Hoarding oil, fighting over territory, Our social security was in tact until a war and hateful politicians stole it. Then a fearful populace refused to act against this robbery because their fear was motivating them, not love. You might even get your car fixed up better by a loving mechanic as compared to one who just wants to make a fast buck off you. No Love hasn't been tried yet and so cannot be judged yet. :heart:




:tongue:

I see what your getting at, I'm talking in terms of the emotion itself though. Rationality, and experience will handle it, whether done in a haphazard way, or through the hands of a compassionate auto mechanic.

How many loving grease monkeys do you know? :lol: (not saying their aren't but...)

Edit: typo, changed "man" to many.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/12/05 09:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Gomp]
    #4046654 - 04/12/05 03:35 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Jumbo shrimp, Honest politicians, rich beggars, and.... :tongue:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4046703 - 04/12/05 03:45 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

one pig another pig (duality)
pig (single) :P ha ha

pigs (single duality) :P hahah


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


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Gomp]
    #4046756 - 04/12/05 03:59 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

fuck that! :P he he yin yang! :P


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


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Edited by Gomp (04/12/05 03:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4046767 - 04/12/05 04:03 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Psychoactive1984 said:
Jumbo shrimp, Honest politicians, rich beggars, and.... :tongue:




blond brunettes.. :wink:

(did i just hear someone say hair color? )

:sun:


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


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
    #4047879 - 04/12/05 09:20 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

After reading a lot on these subjects, I see people trying to defend their beliefs more and more subjectively. For God, in the end people often seem to back up their unjustified belief by saying, "Well, I can't show you the proof, but I discovered God and now I am much better than before," when really all improvements made can be attributed to the vast power of the subconscious. The subconscious regulates your body, it filters out your perception, it provides you with all information and memories stored in your brain. Truely, the subconscious has done much more for our reality than what has been attributed to God, so why also cannot we see God inside our very brains? We don't need a God separate from our minds, when our minds contain a power nearly incomprehensible to our egos. The way this text is automatically registered, perceived, thought of and responded to by the human mind alone seems more powerful than the euphoria and strength "God" has given people.

As if the subconscious could contain all our archetypes, our memory, regulate our body, yet couldn't give us a bit of strength to suffer a torture we couldn't escape anyway? Jesus discovered the true power of his subconscious, the knowledge that he had helped open the eyes of others and that he was now being sacrificed for it. This wasn't understood in that time, and isn't really understood now by most people experiencing the strength of the human mind, but for the beauty the human mind contains, God isn't even needed.

Quote:

i think you've missed the point here. you, your arm, the cup, me, everything else are all made up of the same stuff. you just happen to be a certain specific arrangement of that stuff that has achieved concious thought due to that particular arrangement. we can differentiate between cups and arms, but they are still made of the same thing.

you can look on the universe and everything in it as one thing, constantly changing. you are just part of that one thing, but your conciousness has created an ego which makes you think that you are something else; something special. when you die, the arrangement of stuff in your body will change, your ego will dissapear and you will no longer think you are something different. this can also be achieved with psychedelic drugs. once the drug cancels out the effect of your ego, you no longer think you are something different. your ego and emotions interfere with your logical reasoning, remove it, and the fact that you are no more special than anything else becomes clear.

you could also look at this from a scientific perspective. at the forefront of modern theoretical physics is the search to find a 'theory of everything'; a single mathematical model that will explain everything in the universe. physicits accept that there is only one force in the universe, but we see it acting in different ways so we invent separate forces to describe those different ways. in reality, there is only one. we just havn't aquired the knowledge to describe it yet.




People argue that everything is one by using science, like saying that string theory, which unifies all the four forces of the universe, proves we are all one. How, I ask? String theory (by this I actually mean M-theory) has 11-dimensional vibrating strings that create everything in the universe, but the vibrations of the strings are different which create the differences of particles. How is this saying that everything is one? I agree that everything is made up of similar constituents, but that is a far cry from a unity of everything in existence. Go far enough down, and that smooth, unified marble breaks down into individual molecules, and then atoms, connected, but separate.

If the ego is part of everything, and everything is one, but the ego is just part of this "everything is one" assembled in a different way, wouldn't that alone disprove the everything is one theory? How can you assemble unity?

But even if that was ignored, if the ego is part of a unified everything, and the ego regards itself as separate, it seems logically impossible a part of everything could separate itself and follow illusions eh? If the ego believes itself separate from everything else, the whole argument almost seems to break down into logical fallacies. The ego cannot both be unified everything, and also be an illusion of constituents that have deluded themselves into separateness. If a brick fell out of the wall of a house, we would not say it is a part of that house still.

The most the everything is one argument gets to is the logical conclusion that everything is connected, which it is, either connected by being made up of the same subatomic particles, connected by residing in the same spacetime continuum, or connected simply because you could follow the separate but connected particles of one object to another. This is a far, far cry from everything is one though, and in fact, the opposite has been observed. We go down further and further into the building blocks of the cosmos, and constantly find particles making up everything, connected and interacting, but ultimately separate particles made up of more separate particles.

If you took this vision another way, you may even end up with a completely opposite conclusion, that everything is separate. The more we discover of the building blocks, the more we find separate particles, until finally many people would finish exploring this possibly infinite vision, throw up their arms and say that the separation of the constituents of the universe seems to never end.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
    #4047922 - 04/12/05 09:35 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4048990 - 04/13/05 03:13 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.

now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife. if you assume there's no afterlife it means you popped out of a void of non existance. if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times? since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist. secondly who are you right now? shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
    #4049000 - 04/13/05 03:17 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

"If you took this vision another way, you may even end up with a completely opposite conclusion, that everything is separate. The more we discover of the building blocks, the more we find separate particles, until finally many people would finish exploring this possibly infinite vision, throw up their arms and say that the separation of the constituents of the universe seems to never end."

imo these are two ways of looking at the same thing. if you go in one direction you find infinite seperateness and in the other direction you find infinite oneness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinealsey
meet me in thedreamtimewater...

Registered: 02/17/05
Posts: 1,203
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
    #4049050 - 04/13/05 03:42 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
I agree that everything is made up of similar constituents, but that is a far cry from a unity of everything in existence.




i'm not trying to say that everything is actually physically the same thing. just that people, inanimate objects and everything else are all just different arrangements of particles. i guess i'm talking more about equality than unity. i'm not the same the thing as, say, a book, but since the book is made of the same stuff as me, just in different quantities and a different arrangement, then i am no more special than the book. our ego makes us think that we are in some way special and more important than other things. this might be a subconsious thought most of the time, but its there, and its irrational.

i am just a lump of particles interacting with eachother. so is a book. so is everything else. you could regard the universe as one big lump of particles interacting with eachother. and my body interacts with things outside it. is i type right now, my fingers are interacting electromagnetically with the molecules in the keyboard. i, as a whole, am interacting gravitationally with the earth. when i breath, i am interacting at a chemical level with the atmoshphere. is the air in my lungs part of me, or part of the atmosphere? what about the O2 molecules that diffuse into my blood? are they me, or the atmosphere? if i get cut and bleed, is the blood on the floor me or soemthing else? i am in constant interaction with my environment, and the line where me ends and the environment begins isn't all that distinct when you think about it. where you draw the line is ultimately arbitrary. i am just a particular part of the whole universe, which is a load of particles interacting with eachother.


--------------------
"Gently return to the simple physical sensation of the breath. Then do it again, and again, and again. Somewhere in this process, you will come face-to-face with the sudden and shocking realization that you are completely crazy. Your mind is a shrieking, gibbering madhouse on wheels." - ven. henepola gunaratana

Edited by alsey (04/13/05 03:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
    #4049058 - 04/13/05 03:54 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

"If the ego is part of everything, and everything is one, but the ego is just part of this "everything is one" assembled in a different way, wouldn't that alone disprove the everything is one theory? How can you assemble unity?

But even if that was ignored, if the ego is part of a unified everything, and the ego regards itself as separate, it seems logically impossible a part of everything could separate itself and follow illusions eh? If the ego believes itself separate from everything else, the whole argument almost seems to break down into logical fallacies. The ego cannot both be unified everything, and also be an illusion of constituents that have deluded themselves into separateness. If a brick fell out of the wall of a house, we would not say it is a part of that house still."

the ego is everything, not a part of everything. when the ego exists everything else is, when there is no ego there is nothing else either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinethe_phoenix
Stranger

Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 17 years, 6 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
    #4049527 - 04/13/05 08:24 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Everything is connected, yes. Yin and Yang, you can't show me just one of them, they come as a pair. What context unites them? Right wing and left wing...wings of what? They're united by the political spectrum itself. We all share the larger context of this world. The Earth is "one", yes? It is a whole, a self-contained ecosystem. Yet within the whole, we as individuals possess individuality. No contradiction here, because it all depends on your perspective. A matter of relativety. The most general and all encompassing perspective, beyond time and space, understands everything to be part of the same thing. This oneness can be understood rationally as well as proven experientially.

The ego is indeed part of the whole but it mistakenly believes it possesses sovereign control. There is much ignorance worldwide about this fact, as people everywhere are controlled by their egos, but their ignorance doesn't make it not so. The ego is never actually in control, nor is it ever completely detatched from the whole. Were it to fall so far down into hell then it would destroy itself and at death reunite with the Ineffable.

Reminds me of a poem I wrote...

Evil Is Not I

Joined by the colour spectrum?black and white,
All of us joined by the human fight.
In evil's shadow I pray for good,
Its direction showing me where I stood.
The shadow is mine for it follows my flight, day and night.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Ravus]
    #4053279 - 04/14/05 02:01 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
The evidence I've gathered since birth seems to point to the contrary. My arm is not the same as that cup. I have conscious control over my body, and outside of it I only perceive objects. They are not part of my perceptual body or my consciousness, so the belief that everything is one seems to be lacking in evidence.




The amazing thing is that there are aspects of the functioning of your body that you do not have conscious control over. Various aspects that are integral in the operation of your physical body are undected by one's perceptions. You seem to use conscious control as what ultimately makes the distinction between yourself and the external world. However, distinctions made using this are based on faulty grounds, as I just hinted at.

The air that you breathe is just as much a part of your body as any other aspect of your body. The "external" world is just as much a part of yourself as "yourself" is. I'd like you to demonstrate how this is not true. Using conscious control and one's peceptions as a basis for demonstrating this will not work, as there are integral aspects of your body that consciousness cannot exert control over and perceptions do not perceive any evidence of, but yet determining that these aspects are not of your body would be quite uncalled for (think of your liver, your red blood cells, etc. etc. etc.).

Here's the deal. Draw the exact line where the internal world starts and the external world stops. The functioning of your body and your mind themselves will provide evidence that no such line can possibly exist.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
    #4053349 - 04/14/05 02:27 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Deviate said:
in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.

now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife.

1) if you assume there's no afterlife it  means you popped out of a void of non existance.

2) if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times?

since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist.

3) secondly who are you right now?

4) shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?




1) How is that, and what does that mean? Personalities are created, not imbued. Existance is created, and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.

2) What's to happen again now?

3) Who is anyone? They are themselves, I don't see the any reason to dwelve too deep into our categorization of a person, especially in terms of an afterlife. :shrug: What of those born with no mind or are vegetibles, and lack consciousness (brain dead), are they not afforded this afterlife? What logic brings you to the conclusion that their is indeed an afterlife.

4)  :confused: Are you asking or suggesting? If you can fix something that requires fixing (belief, machine, et etal) why does one need to get introspective as a requisite before they theorize a solution?


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4053442 - 04/14/05 03:44 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Psychoactive1984 said:
Quote:

Deviate said:
in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.

now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife.

1) if you assume there's no afterlife it  means you popped out of a void of non existance.

2) if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times?

since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist.

3) secondly who are you right now?

4) shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?




1) How is that, and what does that mean? Personalities are created, not imbued. Existance is created, and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.

2) What's to happen again now?

3) Who is anyone? They are themselves, I don't see the any reason to dwelve too deep into our categorization of a person, especially in terms of an afterlife. :shrug: What of those born with no mind or are vegetibles, and lack consciousness (brain dead), are they not afforded this afterlife? What logic brings you to the conclusion that their is indeed an afterlife.

4)  :confused: Are you asking or suggesting? If you can fix something that requires fixing (belief, machine, et etal) why does one need to get introspective as a requisite before they theorize a solution?





1) well you say "existance is created". if it can be created once then why not again? i'm not saying the personality will be enduring, just existance itself.

2) existance is to be created and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.

3) what is the self? i ask this because i think consciousness isn't the same as the personality.  as for vegetables, if they are not conciouss then who is being deprived of an afterlife? non existance isn't percievable.

4) if we don't have a complete understanding of life how can we understand death?

Edited by Deviate (04/14/05 03:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
    #4055120 - 04/14/05 02:15 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Deviate said:
Quote:

Psychoactive1984 said:
Quote:

Deviate said:
in respone to your assertions about life after death, i don't think it's wishfull in all cases. i used to think like you, that when the brain dies that's it. but if you consider the implications of this it's actually quite comforting. it translates into complete nihilism. it means all your suffering, all your problems, everything will end as soon as you die and instantly be consumed by the nothing. even your current existance would be erased because someone who doesn't exist cannot have a past. there's absolutely nothing to fear because nothing matters anyway. its bliss. in many ways its a much more comforting thought than the possibility of an afterlife in which conditions are even worse than they are now.

now my own thinking and experiences have lead me to consider the possibility of an afterlife.

1) if you assume there's no afterlife it  means you popped out of a void of non existance.

2) if this happened once, who is to say it won't happen again? who is to say it won't happen a billion times?

since the times in between existances are not perceivable and would be swallowed by the void, from your point of you, you would always exist.

3) secondly who are you right now?

4) shouldn't you find this out before you theorize about what happens after death?




1) How is that, and what does that mean? Personalities are created, not imbued. Existance is created, and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.

2) What's to happen again now?

3) Who is anyone? They are themselves, I don't see the any reason to dwelve too deep into our categorization of a person, especially in terms of an afterlife. :shrug: What of those born with no mind or are vegetibles, and lack consciousness (brain dead), are they not afforded this afterlife? What logic brings you to the conclusion that their is indeed an afterlife.

4)  :confused: Are you asking or suggesting? If you can fix something that requires fixing (belief, machine, et etal) why does one need to get introspective as a requisite before they theorize a solution?





1) well you say "existance is created". if it can be created once then why not again? i'm not saying the personality will be enduring, just existance itself.

2) existance is to be created and altered on the basis of one's perceptions of an environment.

3) what is the self? i ask this because i think consciousness isn't the same as the personality.  as for vegetables, if they are not conciouss then who is being deprived of an afterlife? non existance isn't percievable.

4) if we don't have a complete understanding of life how can we understand death?




1) I wasn't suggesting it couldn't, but we won't know till our time is over, and we forget our former existances (so goes the supposition). I'm talking in concrete terms, it's known that personalities can be adapted, created, controlled, and manipulated, it happens all the time. I'm just thinking in more concrete terms.

Say we create, and concieve a computer that has artifical intelligence on par with the human mind (it's irrelevant whether it is achievable, say it does for example purposes). The computer crashes, and all that was stored on the system concerning it's nature, is lost... do we suppose that the created persona that we've allowed the computer to achieve is going elsewhere? It's stored on the computer, and leaves with the computer when it no longer functions, I doubt it goes off and reincarnates it's memory into an IPOD.... I can know that for sure, now, apply the same to a human being, and why somehow a consciousness created outside our power isn't subject to the same standards of the afterlife and cosmic consciousness.

2) That was my question.

3) Ah, I love the subjective indications. Plants react to different forms of music in terms of their growth, which partially shows a liking to certain assemblies of notes, seems conscious enough to me, and applicable... Unless we want to define conscious phenomena solely as our own, and unique to humans, and humans alone. What is self? It has so many variations, we might as well ask what shade of grey that grey shirt over their is.... it doesn't matter, it's representative of something, and overall it's grey, I don't see the need to further define and to qualify a person to that extent.

4) We don't have a complete understanding of many things, the universe for example... yet we can still understand how it functions to a degree... How is it that you see anything progressing in terms of understanding anything without logical induction in way of known evidence? Or do you suggest that we have faith in something not proven to exist, has a wide range of implications, and is based on something that can't be proven...?

I can scramble eggs, without knowing the precise chemical names, and proteins that congeil as a result of the albumen being cooked.... You don't need to know everything about something, to see it in action.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4055293 - 04/14/05 03:19 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

1) "apply the same to a human being, and why somehow a consciousness created outside our power isn't subject to the same standards of the afterlife and cosmic consciousness."

i'm not sure what you mean by that. it would be subject to the same standards.

3) you are the one who said vegetables "lack consciousness".

4) i'm not suggesting we have faith in something, just that there are different theories we can explain the same phenomena. what can be proven to exist other than the self?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Deviate]
    #4055325 - 04/14/05 03:28 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

1) your point of quoting me? It was to point out that it isn't, nor shall it occur in something of our own creation unless it is transmuted/transformed after the end result through our manipulation. e.g. we could recover the harddrive (meh) and translate the entity to another form... why can't god do that? we can't prove god exists, we can prove that we exist though.

3) Human vegetables, in terms of how we typically define consciousness. Not vegetables, those without any form of thought, completely brain dead... that which doesn't have a function beyond autonomous functions of the brain used to sustain life. Please don't take it of context.

http://www.reason.com/links/links032205.shtml (good current example in line with what I'm talking about, however I'm talking completely brain dead)

They wouldn't be afforded an afterlife, especially those born into such a situation (it has happened, although infrequently)... how could something without conscious experience such after one's life? How is it applied, through what machinations does this mysticism apply in way of your interpretation of its function?

4) .... I'm not even going to answer that. Get a grounded sense of reality and come on back when your ready to discuss.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/14/05 03:36 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Logical Empiricism [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4055436 - 04/14/05 03:50 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

1) yes i'm aware of that, i'm not saying the individual self will survive death. just existance itself.

3) first you say plants are conciouss and then you say human vegetables are not conciouss in terms of how we typically define consciousness. i'm asking what the difference is between a brain dead human and an actual plant. neither one has a functioning brain.

4) what is a grounded sense of reality? how can you prove something exists besides yourself?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* I have philosophical evidence for the existence of God!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 12,868 109 02/13/04 11:28 PM
by SpecialEd
* objective reality does not exist
( 1 2 all )
monoamine 6,440 34 11/01/02 08:55 AM
by Newbie2000
* *cough* EXISTENCE *hack*
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
buttonion 21,492 173 03/19/04 12:03 AM
by Frog
* Proof That God Does Not Exist
( 1 2 all )
yewhew 4,265 37 02/21/04 03:34 AM
by raytrace
* Traps and pitfalls of logic and science.
( 1 2 all )
gribochek 4,436 28 04/23/02 10:06 PM
by infidelGOD
* You silly afterlife-believing fools...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Mixomatosis 6,869 99 11/30/03 08:04 PM
by trendal
* free PARANORMAL/AFTERLIFE ebook: Please Review Asante 1,643 7 04/08/08 06:12 PM
by lifemeaning93
* aliens don't exist, I have proof
( 1 2 3 all )
chodamunky 12,123 58 09/26/02 04:53 AM
by In(di)go

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,381 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 25 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.02 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.