User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 68

  1. #31
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    The problem is that the self is too subjective. We say we are "ourselves" because of thoughts, feelings, sensations, emotions, all things that go on inside of brains that are really physical.

    This does two things: First, it destroys personal identity because everything we associate with consciousness, everything that we elevate higher, is in fact caused by the physical matter of our brains. Second, it means everything we are is actually preserved. Our physical brains may die, and the information about life experiences may be "wiped" or "illegible" due to decay, but all information is equal and connected; hypothetically if you had good enough understanding and technology you could extrapolate a few general background details about a rotting corpse, predict to a microscopic level of detail how the brain decayed, and in effect reconstruct the person's entire experience as they felt it in their brains.

    So the information in their brains that made them "them" is in fact shared with all the rest of the information in their environment.
    Our conversation is on two different wavelengths here, for I agree with your assertion completely, but I'm not entirely sure that you agree with the "point of view" that I claim. The experience lives on despite the deaths of our identity, our consciousness, our mind, our body, our brain, etc.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Our conversation is on two different wavelengths here, for I agree with your assertion completely, but I'm not entirely sure that you agree with the "point of view" that I claim. The experience lives on despite the deaths of our identity, our consciousness, our mind, our body, our brain, etc.
    I think I get it.

    You're right, our arguments are just opposite angles of the same thing. You argue "I can't not exist;" I argue "No one exists, therefore everyone exists." Same thing, except you used Ni and I think I used Ne.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    I think I get it.

    You're right, our arguments are just opposite angles of the same thing. You argue "I can't not exist;" I argue "No one exists, therefore everyone exists." Same thing, except you used Ni and I think I used Ne.
    Essentially, yes.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Good question, and the answer is yes.

    But rather than believe, I probe.

    And so I probe with, the meaning of my post is its response. This goes counter to the conventional belief that the author (Mole) creates the meaning of my post.

    So I am suggesting you experiment with the idea that you create the meaning of my post - go on, go ahead, feel free to experiment.

    Or another probe might be, we perceive by making distinctions.

    This particular probe has been iterated in a whole explanation of mathematics in, The Laws of Form, by G. Spencer-Brown.

    Another most interesting probe is, the medium is the message.

    Normally we think of the medium a simply a tool to carry the message, but this particular probe says it is the medium itself that is the message.

    And this particular probe has been iterated into into a whole explanation of the history of media, including the one we are using now, in the book, Understanding Media, by Marshall McLuhan.
    You answer the question simply, but shirk the greater insinuation: without an appreciation for the a priori, your mind is void and without form.
    "Void" as in: without [its own] effect
    And "without form" meaning: lacking [its own] foundation

    Mind without it's own foundation, will just vainly mimic foundations portrayed by others (this is the darkness driven by vanity that overshadows the light of your own heart of understanding).
    a priori is the "light" talked about in Genesis, the first thing to be created by the word, because God is light.

    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: [...]

    Even God only saw it was good, after he had seen what he made.
    I already showed you mine, why don't you show me yours

    further addition:
    To be perfectly; 'show me yours' means show me a direct response that positively answers my original post in this thread.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-18-2014 at 03:08 PM. Reason: further addition:... (and then edited the sentence below further addition.)
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    You answer the question simply, but shirk the greater insinuation: without an appreciation for the a priori, your mind is void and without form.
    Your argument from a priori is a deductive argument used as propaganda by the Scholastics (1100-1700 AD).

    However we have replaced the deductive arguments of Scholasticism with the inductive reasoning of science.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Your argument from a priori is a deductive argument used as propaganda by the Scholastics (1100-1700 AD).

    However we have replaced the deductive arguments of Scholasticism with the inductive reasoning of science.
    Could you explain how your alternate understanding (unless it is merely an unverifiable claim and in fact in no wise an understanding)?
    And "we" who? Because I would contend you are simply referring to "we" the mislead. I have tried to lay down reasoned explanation for each of my claims; although this style is not immune to mocking, it is resilient to reasoned discussion;- would you care to provide some?

    PS: Well done on replacing those arguments, and losing the ability to answer a question about what something means without the gripe of simultaneous examining some other distinct state that must be presumed to lie on the exact opposite side of the [dialectical] spectrum.

    I wouldn't be so sure that philosophy is capable of being contained by a scientific outlook; otherwise how does science explain its own first principles without offering them exception to its general schema? Science itself operates on premises, why should I prefer those premises and accept its inductive force when I am capable of choosing my own premises and enjoying the inductive fruit of my own selections?
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-19-2014 at 08:04 AM. Reason: added PS:
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  7. #37

    Default

    The opposite to real.

  8. #38

    Default

    Unreal- beyond the physical reality

  9. #39
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    Could you explain how your alternate understanding (unless it is merely an unverifiable claim and in fact in no wise an understanding)?
    And "we" who? Because I would contend you are simply referring to "we" the mislead. I have tried to lay down reasoned explanation for each of my claims; although this style is not immune to mocking, it is resilient to reasoned discussion;- would you care to provide some?

    PS: Well done on replacing those arguments, and losing the ability to answer a question about what something means without the gripe of simultaneous examining some other distinct state that must be presumed to lie on the exact opposite side of the [dialectical] spectrum.

    I wouldn't be so sure that philosophy is capable of being contained by a scientific outlook; otherwise how does science explain its own first principles without offering them exception to its general schema? Science itself operates on premises, why should I prefer those premises and accept its inductive force when I am capable of choosing my own premises and enjoying the inductive fruit of my own selections?
    The problem is that your Church and your teachers have imbued you with medieval propaganda by the Scholastics (propaganda de fidei).

    The Scholastics had not experienced the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, and so had no knowledge of evidence and inductive reason.

    If they were alive today, they would not be teaching deductive medieval theology.

    And here we are today in the 21st century and you are trying to involve me in a deductive, scholastic argument in order to prove me wrong.

    In fact you are engaging in naive proselytizing and it's not working.

    Frankly, if I were you I would go back to your teachers and ask them why they taught you medieval theology in the 21st century.

    I know why they taught you medieval theology. It is because they think it is plausible. But it is only plausible to the naive.

    So your teachers are intellectually exploiting you.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    The problem is that your Church and your teachers have imbued you with medieval propaganda by the Scholastics (propaganda de fidei).

    The Scholastics had not experienced the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, and so had no knowledge of evidence and inductive reason.

    If they were alive today, they would not be teaching deductive medieval theology.

    And here we are today in the 21st century and you are trying to involve me in a deductive, scholastic argument in order to prove me wrong.

    In fact you are engaging in naive proselytizing and it's not working.

    Frankly, if I were you I would go back to your teachers and ask them why they taught you medieval theology in the 21st century.

    I know why they taught you medieval theology. It is because they think it is plausible. But it is only plausible to the naive.

    So your teachers are intellectually exploiting you.
    You have thrown around a lot labels and descriptions, but again you fail to explain any of them by way of reason.
    And if you are not subject to reasoned explanation, how can you anyone truly know that you even have an understanding that isn't just vanity masquerading as understanding? Will you ignore this concern a third time??? Because you have offered no testimony that shows you should be above this concern! Your implied taunting which frame my ideas as false because they haven't kept up with the times is not a legitimate tactic of anything other than VANITY. Please will you explain your philosophy, or is it too embarrassing to articulate, I have laid mine to bear, why can't you do the same?

    In summation: [and please don't respond to my summation if you don't first deal with the above contention, because this summation requires a spiritual mind to understand it- so presumably you will disagree, and if you wish to assert the stance you prefer, you will only be able to accomplish this by answering my rationale for this summation (found above);- alternatively you may answer the summation with my regard if you provide reasoned explanation for your averments, but something tells me since you haven't been able to explain (as opposed to just describing) any of your prior counter-claims, you aren't likely to start engaging with the following charge when you have avoided rebutting any of its constituent elements.]
    With science as your epidemiological grounding, you do realize nothing you say or do can ever be believed on. Because inductive reasoning can never escape the possibility of falsification: so I hope you are content to live in a system where truth is fiction, and falsification is non-fiction.

    PS: Science might be a useful engine for progress at a certain stages of development, that doesn't make it viable philosophical construct to subjugate ones logic (and reasoning) too. Scientific thought does not rule philosophy. Science rules certain models, it is not the engine that governs reality. Imagining that it is the engine that governs reality is sheer hubris.

    I made this meme to express how you make me feel (can someone please inform me if this is breaking a rule)
    http://i.imgur.com/0LaHwY4.jpg

    [and if your wondering why I don't feel prone to my own meme: it's because I will offer explanation for my words so that others can understand, so that I might be believed on; when you aren't capable of doing the same, how can you ever hope to be preferred by any other means than pulling the wool over peoples eyes while pointing to idols of worldly authority? Who is really intellectually exploiting who when your system of belief is incapable of presenting people with a reasoned grounding that can be explained? (describing a system of belief in a fancy way that seeks to avert explanation that can really be understood is not the same as explanation that can be adopted by a real heart of understanding)]
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-20-2014 at 02:52 PM. Reason: 'don the same' changed to "do"*** added meme::: and some grammar correction
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

Similar Threads

  1. What is the best thing someone ever said to you?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-14-2016, 01:03 AM
  2. [INFP] What is the best way to tell an INFP you love them?
    By demaugustus in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 03:20 PM
  3. What is the best part of an Oreo cookie?
    By The Ü™ in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 11:22 AM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. What is the best country to live in?
    By JAVO in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 05:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO