Examing Death...

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Death is tha goal of all life" Sigmond Freud
Do you agree or disagree?
Why?

[scameter]

Does life has a conscious goal?

[buzzlightyear1982]

Freud thought so...myself I haven't found the "meaning" of my life yet. So if life doesn't have "conscious meaning" ...why are we here?

[Smurf]

why are we here

to find the answer

"Death is tha goal of all life" Sigmond Freud
Do you agree or disagree?

if this was a conscious goal in all life then we would have descended into oblivion many years ago, no I do not agree with this but I think that we are disadvantaged by not having the exact circumstances with which Freud formulated this statement

[buzzlightyear1982]

Forgive me but the quote itself is unimportant, it is the underline subject of the quote and that is death. What is the definition of an oblivion? It's all about interpitation, for you an oblivion is one thing and to me an oblivion is another. You disagree with freud...I don't. The quote is like a poem...noone knows the real meaning behind it except the one who said it. Unless we ask freud himself we can only speculate and research what could be the meaning but we really can't be sure B)

[Thomas Knierim]

I disagree. Death is the ultimate consequence of life and at the same time the precondition for life. Saying that it is the goal of life, however, muddles things up. Are you sure the quotation is accurate?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Well, metaphorically it would seem as if death is the chronological goal of life. But, logically, for something to have a goal, it must be a conscious being/entity, and I have never heard of life being such. Of course, I could simply be ignorant on the subject; but even in my ignorance I would think it unreasonable to think life has a goal, or goals. But, anything is possible.

[buzzlightyear1982]

The quote is accurate! The thing to remember about freud is that he was a neurologist first and a psychoanalytic second. So it is really hard to tell how he was thinking. So when he made the quote their was no way to tell if he was being the neurologist or the psychoanalytic. However, freud also said

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

So now the question is are simple over thinking death or underthinking death B)

[TruthSeeker]

Death is inevitable and is, by definition, inseparate from life. Life without death, wouldn't be life. Everything someday comes to an end. That's the poetry of the universe... B)

[buzzlightyear1982]

I agree with you when you say death is inevitable, and I also agree with you when you say life isn't life without death B) So now that we agree on that the question we must explore now is...what happens to the human soul after death? Do we all just fade away like our bodies and memories? Or is their a bigger purpose for us after we leave our bodies? And if there is a reasonable posibility that we can remained after our bodies have faded...does that affect our path in the after life?

[scameter]

But is that a rule truthseeker, or is that simply how it is? That is one of my problems with science: it describes reality and quite accurately using reason, but it never attempts to speculate beyond that into the realm of why. It prefers to become into it's specific methods, to apply them to reality, and then say that what they say is valid; of course it is going to be valid. That is like using math and saying it is undoubtedly valid; when something is purposely formulated by us with the intent of rational structure, of course it is going to see logically true; we made it specifically to be so! It leaves off, as Colin Wilson says, what the ancient Peruvians called huaca, the unseen forces. It prefers to remain narrow in it's thinking, and indeed to limit consciousness.

[buzzlightyear1982]

All though I'm not sure...I'm quite certain that is a rule! For if we could avoid death, don't you think paople would select that option? Death is inevitable and what you've made of your life can only truely come out when you are dead. Peoples real feels, thoughts, charactors, and actions towards an indivisual often reviel themselves after their death. As far as why death happens...that will never be answered because no one can agree B)

[scameter]

I disagree. For one, I don't think everyone would wish to live forever, especially if the effects of age remained. I certainly wouldn't. I would perhaps like to live longer, but I would like to die some time, especially, once again, if the effects of age, particularly a slower mind and memory, would still be in effect. But, perhaps I'm alone in this. And for two, what do you mean by our personal feelings, thoughts, etc. are usually expressed after death? How can that be? Perhaps much can be gathered from one's writings, but not everyone writes, paints, or anything else. I believe a person's true, deep character, thoughts and feelings to be their own; and I also believe this to be the beauty of communication, art, etc., because it allows us to converse our feelings and thoughts with one another, but I do not think our selves are ever, or could ever be, fully expressed in communication.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"I don't think everyone would wish to live forever, especially if the effects of age remained"

I agree with this...I know I wouldn't want to live forever if given the chance. However, I can't help but wonder...I recently saw amovie were a man froze his body for ten years and when he defrosted he was just as young as he was the day he was froze. However his memorie was the same as well, he had mssed out on ten years worth of history. Now if this was an option would people go for it?

"I believe a person's true, deep character, thoughts and feelings to be their own; and I also believe this to be the beauty of communication, art, etc., because it allows us to converse our feelings and thoughts with one another, but I do not think our selves are ever, or could ever be, fully expressed in communication."

Perhaps I worded it wrong, I ment the living indivisuals...not the dead ones. You see it's been my expierance that people don't show their true colors till your gone B)

[scameter]

However his memorie was the same as well, he had mssed out on ten years worth of history. Now if this was an option would people go for it?

What would be the point to? The entire point of living forever is to live; when entirely frozen, you're essentially not even alive, and you don't experience anything. Why be frozen for a hundred years, only to awaken in a time you don't know or like?

You see it's been my expierance that people don't show their true colors till your gone

<_< I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Please forgive my confusion; I do want to know what you mean. It simply doesn't make much sense to me. It seems as if you're saying that people don't show their true colours until you're gone, but by you do you mean an individual that only sees someone else's true colours when that person is dead?

[buzzlightyear1982]

Simple put, no one is truely faithful to one person, when the act of death has taken part they feel a sence of being free to release all that negative fustration that was bult up about the indivisual B)

[buzzlightyear1982]

Simple put, no one is truely faithful to one person, when the act of death has taken part they feel a sence of being free to release all that negative fustration that was bult up about the indivisual B)

[scameter]

<_< What do you mean exactly? That no one truly can be faithful to one person, and that when the other individual dies they are able to feel free from the built up frustration during the relationship??

[buzzlightyear1982]

In short everyone is a back stabber, everyone talks behnd your back, and you can trust no one in life. But when your dead all that back stabbing and talking that goes on behind your back becomes public. Because they no longer have to look over their shoulders to see if your comming B)

[scameter]

But when you're dead, they'd no longer do it to you. <_<

[buzzlightyear1982]

So you think...statically all that turns to guilt and thats where all the fake smiles and concern comes from. B)

[scameter]

So, essentially, you're saying that no smile, compassion or kindness is real; only emotions such as hatred, deception, anger, and resentment?

[buzzlightyear1982]

NOW YOUR GETTING IT!

[scameter]

lol Well, if I am, I do not see how that can be true.

[buzzlightyear1982]

It's all interpitation...my life has taught me to look at life that way B)

[scameter]

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is how it is.

[buzzlightyear1982]

No one can agree on how it is or how it will be...thats why we disagee so much B)

[scameter]

Yes, but there are some things that are beliefs that can be changed according to how reality truly is.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"but there are some things that are beliefs that can be changed according to how reality truly is"

Again, reality to one person is differant t another so how are we going to define wht true reality is?

[scameter]

It is perceived differently yes, and different beliefs can be held about it, but reality remains the same however it is believed in. If I see a tree, and you look at the same tree, would you not think it is a tree too? Even if you called it something else, it is still, fundamentally, a tree, name aside.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"If I see a tree, and you look at the same tree, would you not think it is a tree too? Even if you called it something else, it is still, fundamentally, a tree, name aside"

Good point...genraly a tree looks like a tree, however, there are some people who would call a bush a tree. If you look at a tree and you say it's on the left and I say it's on the right, isn't the point that I saw the tree in the first place? We may see the reality but the perspective in which we see it is differant. That is what makes us special in our seperate ways. If we all saw the tree the samw perspective then what fun would life be?

[scameter]

Indeed, our particular views of reality vary between the individual and usually from their certain place in reality at any given time, such as on the left or right of a tree; but, that, I suppose, is subjective knowledge. Objectively, a tree is still a tree, based on the definition of the word tree, and a bush is a bush.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"such as on the left or right of a tree; but, that, I suppose, is subjective knowledge. Objectively, a tree is still a tree, based on the definition of the word tree, and a bush is a bush"

So if I'm understanding you correctly...objective knowledge is more important than subjective knowledge. I disagree...I believe that subjective knowledge is nothing with objective knowledge, you can't have one without the other B)

[scameter]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that subjective knowledge is more broad, whilst objective knowledge is created by our placing of bounds, such as that a tree is a tree by how we define tree. Subjectively, a tree can be so many different things, depending on the viewer's perception of it at any given time and place. But, I personally believe that both are important, but I prefer subjective knowledge, because of it's broadness, but I also enjoy objectivity because of it's exclusivity, and opportunity to understand the world based on entirely mental constructs.

[buzzlightyear1982]

I see what your saying now :thumbsup:
I personaly like subjective because there is room to look at it from one point of view and then turn around and consider in the opposite point of view B)

[scameter]

Me too. Which, to me, makes subjective knowledge more broad than the objective knowledge's way of formulating a rigid method and simply applying it.

[buzzlightyear1982]

So out of curriousity would you consider science to objective? It is rather defnate in it's process and findings <_<

[scameter]

No, I do not believe it is entirely objective. I believe that it has an aspect of objectivity, unlike many things, because of it's method of using a rigid method to decipher and collect specific facts regarding reality and they do so in a semi-general way. But, I also believe that because of the rigidity of the method, because of it's human-specific content, and because of it's relativity to the observer's belief, it still, like everything else, is predominantly subjective. I believe that perhaps history is the only thing that comes close to pure objectivity, because of it's almost entirety of pure observation and logical collection of historical accounts with only the interest of furthering historical knowledge in mind and essential lack of person imputed opinion. But, oddly, I believe that here, subjectivity can be excellently adjoined with history's objective aspect, in such instances as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in which he often philosophically commentates, as well as Charles Van Doren's A History of Knowledge, in which he commentates on various things, such as calling Egypt's method of "if it works, don't try to fix it" avoidance of change as being very effective for over 3000 years, and that the sacrifice of hundreds of humans weekly by the Aztects was horrible.

[Smurf]

From Wikipedia about the before said quote:

The death instinct (Thanatos, or Death Drive) was defined by Sigmund Freud, in Jenseits des Lustprinzips (Beyond the Pleasure Principle) (1920; English translation 1922).

Freud begins the work considering the experience of trauma and traumatic events (particularly the trauma experienced by soldiers returning from World War I). The most curious feature of highly unpleasant experiences for Freud was that subjects often tended to repeat or re-enact them. This appeared to violate the "pleasure principle," the drive of an individual to maximize his or her pleasure. Freud found this repetition of unpleasant events in the most ordinary of cirumstances, even in children's play (such as the celebrated Fort/Da ("Here"/"Gone") game played by Freud's grandson). After hypothesizing a number of causes (particularly the idea that we repeat traumatic events in order to master them after the fact), Freud considered the existence of a fundamental death wish or death instinct, referring to an individual's own need to die. Organisms, according to this idea, were driven to return to a pre-organic, inanimate state—but they wished to do so in their own way.

In psychoanalytical theory, the death instinct (or death drive) opposes Eros. The "death instinct" signals a desire to give up the struggle of life and return to quiescence and the grave. This should not be confused with a similar urge/force destrudo.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"I believe that perhaps history is the only thing that comes close to pure objectivity"

So your saying that our past is objective, because it already happened, and our future is not, because it has yet to happen?

[scameter]

Hmm... I wasn't saying that specifically, but yes that is applicable, because the past has already happened and is certain; the future is never certain, and thus our predictability of it is also undefinite. History, however, is not perfect because it cannot actually see into the past, but it's single goal is to have the clearest possible view of the past that they can have. I think this is the closest thing to objectivity; although even it isn't entirely objective.

[greatballsoffire]

Hmm... I wasn't saying that specifically, but yes that is applicable, because the past has already happened and is certain; the future is never certain, and thus our predictability of it is also undefinite. History, however, is not perfect because it cannot actually see into the past, but it's single goal is to have the clearest possible view of the past that they can have. I think this is the closest thing to objectivity; although even it isn't entirely objective.


Like past the future has also happened. depends where you are located in the time space continnum or whatever that is called.

Thus future is also certain but you do not know it yet
there can be minor variations and those will depend upon you

there are multiple probable futures as there are multiple probable pasts.[br]your present choices will determine what your future will be.

real objectivity is when the you are the observer and you are the observed. do not panic if you are revulsed at your self.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Like past the future has also happened."

So do yu believe in the thoery that history repeats itself :think:

[Winfried]

History is never certain. There are lies, propoganda, subjective sources of information, or just bad writing by the people at the great battles.
Thus future is also certain but you do not know it yet
I don't know if I really understand this... The future is certain, but no one is certain about the future, is that what you're saying?

Little brainteaser: If you in some way are able to go to the past and change something will the present be different, or the same? 'Cause if you change something in the past, it means it already happened... <_<
Could I go back and kill myself? Or my father? Will I still be alive to go back to kill myself, if I am already killed a few years before (by myself)?
What violence...

This goes nowhere... :think:

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Little brainteaser: If you in some way are able to go to the past and change something will the present be different, or the same? 'Cause if you change something in the past, it means it already happened... Could I go back and kill myself? Or my father? Will I still be alive to go back to kill myself, if I am already killed a few years before (by myself)?
What violence..."


If you change something in the past then it will be differant in the future. Everything affects everything...so if you kill your father in the past than you will not exist for your father never will have never met your mother. If you kill yourself in the past then you could no longewr return to the future so there for you have just changed the future by killing yourself in the past.

[Winfried]

If you kill yourself in the past then you could no longewr return to the future so there for you have just changed the future by killing yourself in the past.
So you're saying that there are more timelines than one? I can't really grasp that idea, I think time is linear, and there is but one timeline. Everything can happen, but once it has happened it cannot be changed. Therefore going back in time to kill yourself is a foolish idea. Not only because killing oneself with no particular reason is foolish, but also it can't be done for if you are killed in the past you'll be dead in the present (italics for the effect).

But if time is linear, can timetravelling be possible at all? It is a dimension if we are to believe mr Einstein, but isn't it quite different than space? What is this 'time' anyway?

[scameter]

Like past the future has also happened. depends where you are located in the time space continnum or whatever that is called.

But then, relatively, if one is not at the very end of the continuum there will always be both past and future. And, because past has already happened and is both unalterable and unperceivable besides with the current moment's evidence, it is certain. But, the future has not yet occured, and relatively to the individual, it is thus not certain because it is still alterable.

Thus future is also certain but you do not know it yet
there can be minor variations and those will depend upon you
there are multiple probable futures as there are multiple probable pasts.[br]your present choices will determine what your future will be.

But that is not true of the past. How can the future be certain if there are so many "probable" versions, and further relative to the individual? I think this is science's attempt to say the future is certain because they can predict using probability, but probability is not certainty.

real objectivity is when the you are the observer and you are the observed. do not panic if you are revulsed at your self.

I disagree. Real objectivity cannot exist because one will always be the subject, whether one perceives they are being observed or if one perceives they are observing. We are trapped within our minds and our senses, and thus we are inevitably subjective. As long as we are individual and as long as we have limiting senses and minds, we cannot be entirely objective. The furthest objectivity is that which we invent for ourselves, namely science, history, and the like, which are too often confused to being entirely objective.

So do yu believe in the thoery that history repeats itself

I know this question wasn't for me, but I'll answer it anyways. I think it does, in a sense. Because our minds always retain their own distinctive qualities, the fact that every human mind is similar and thus our choices are similar even throughout time, and that nature has been somewhat stable during our entire lifetime of civilization, history in a sense does repeat it's self, but not in the actual repitition of the time continuum or circularity of time or any of that, although those are perhaps true, it does not apply to the repitition of history in what I just said.

History is never certain. There are lies, propoganda, subjective sources of information, or just bad writing by the people at the great battles.

Indeed, because we are human. As I said, history is not entirely certain because we can never actually go back in time, nor, as you note, are we capable of being without error. But, history is not the past; history is the study of the past.

If you in some way are able to go to the past and change something will the present be different, or the same?

I think that you could go back into the past and change the future, but that doesn't mean you would be able to return. For instance, if you killed your father before you were born, you would not be able to return in your current state. If you returned, you would be dead. Even if the time machine was devoid of the effects you made in the past, you would not be, and would never have been able to go to the past once you killed your father. Thus, in fact, you would die as soon as you killed your father, or perhaps would simply cease to exist.

So you're saying that there are more timelines than one?

That's what quantum physics and parallel universe theory says. :)

[buzzlightyear1982]

"So you're saying that there are more timelines than one?"

Yes...think of it as a strand of DNA...there are multiple strand within our bodies but we only use some of them. The other strands of DNA get activated and accure by multiple or single evens that happen to or within our bodies. The same applies to time...there are multiple strands of time that could occure and be activated by certain evens. Which ones are reality and which ones are just there all depends on the events that occure to us or the world in our every day to day lives B)

[scameter]

But do all strands of time exist for a reason, and how can they exist and what are they physically, or are they even physical?

[scameter]

Psyche, of course you were into it. The monk brought your soul so much into focus of your physical body that you were consumed by it and his portrayal of it's ending, indeed the most physical thing possible is death. Belief is very powerful.

[Smurf]

examining death

recently i fell and broke my hand

i had to have surgery

so the hospital asks you if you are going to die do you want a priest a rabbi or what

so i said 'i want a tibetan buddhist monk'

(they are totally into and on top of death)

and for a moment there i sort of visualized dying with the help of the tibetan buddhist and this is the strange part

i was kinda into it

:lol:
that would be awesome!
going against the normal Christian priest orRabbi etc
:thumbsup:

[scameter]

Hmm... I didn't really get that she was "going against" anything in her choice. Just that she thought Tibetan Buddhism knows about death, and so she chose one of them for her.

[sonrisa]

Scam-- how can the future be certain if there are so many "probable" versions, and, further relative to the individual?

I think that you could go back into the past and change the future, but that doesn't mean you would be able to return.. yada yada (Scam explains the Grandfather Paradox)

-- in both cases: this is where the Heisenberg Principle kicks in....

[scameter]

Perhaps. But, if that is the uncertainty principle as I think it is, what would not being able to know the position and speed of a particle at the same time have to do with the certainty of time? What if time is certain?

[scameter]

Indeed, quite my point. :)

[cooxman]

ok, people:

Death is the final event of a distinct biological entity's lifetime, not very much else to examine where certainity is concern all else is speculation, such as the following:

when one dies, memories fade away, all is lost, heck, it happen even when while one is alive.
Life as we know it, is really the result of our memories. Complete memory loss, would be the equivalent to biological-self-limited reencarnation.


when one dies, one goes to purgotory,when one leaves that place, one goes to heaven. ahhhh how sweet this sensored version is.

[scameter]

Death is the final event of a distinct biological entity's lifetime, not very much else to examine where certainity is concern all else is speculation, such as the following:

Certainty. :) Everything is so absolute. We see something, and it is definite. We experience it, and it is even more definite an concrete. This is not philosophy. Philosophy has no answers; it is about questioning. Nothing is definite, because everything is doubtable.

when one dies, one goes to purgotory,when one leaves that place, one goes to heaven. ahhhh how sweet this sensored version is.

It is? Dying and working in purgatory to remove the sin from one's self for possibly thousands of years is sweet? I think the scientific model of death is sweeter than this. At least it has nothing, no purgatory or heaven or hell. One can do anything in life, and it doesn't matter, including murder, rape, child molestation and other things. :)

[sonrisa]

cooxman--Death is the final event of a distinct biological entity's lifetime

-- well it's the end of the body (the biological part) yes, but the spirit moves on to something or somewhere else. Death is a transition point.

Scam-- what if time is certain?

-- if time is certain, then there would only be 1 future, not many probable futures. So the Heisenberg Principle would not apply. You can always reject the Heisenberg Principle, Einstein did.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"well it's the end of the body (the biological part) yes, but the spirit moves on to something or somewhere else. Death is a transition point."

So are you suggesting that there really is really a light you walk into when you die? Or is it possible that some spirits wonder the earth? Which would certainly explain the incounter with 'ghost' that some people claim to have B)

[sonrisa]

no, yes, & yes
B)

[scameter]

if time is certain, then there would only be 1 future, not many probable futures. So the Heisenberg Principle would not apply. You can always reject the Heisenberg Principle, Einstein did.

:) Indeed, although I don't, because I think nothing is certain, if indeed that is the Uncertainty Principle as I suspect. I was saying "what if", although I do think the past is certain because it already has happened, although from a philosophical level even it isn't certain, but practically speaking I think it is. But, even if there are many probable futures, that is simply us speculating about the future. Would the future not be certain, as it will happen as it will happen inevitably and regardless? That doesn't mean it's planned necessarily; that simply means that what happens is what makes the future, thus would there not only exist one future, if even one future for every individual?

[sonrisa]

oh Scam. as usual, your brain is way ahead of your mouth. Or your fingers. Whatever.

ok let's sort this out:

The Heisenberg Principle states that you cannot know both the precise location and momentum of a particle simultaneously, therefore its future cannot be determined. You cannot calculate the future location of a particle, only a range of possible trajectories. Thomas has an audioclip of Heisenberg explaining his principle in subatomic terms.

But subatomic particles make up atoms, which in turn make up us.... or if we apply the Principle to time in general.... at any rate, if we know precisely where we are at- & hopefully we all do- then we cannot detemine where we are going, only a range of possiblities. For instance, I can say that I'm going to the store tomorrow. But, as we all know, stuff happens, & alot of stuff can happen in 24 hours. So there are futures where I actually make it to the store the next day, & futures where events occur that prevent me from going to the store as I intended. You have to take causuality into account- I can speculate about going to the store & what I'm going to get there. But events may transpire that prevent me from going to the store. Or I make it to the store, but they are out of what I need, so I come home empty-handed. Or I go to the store, get what I need, & come home. That's 3 possible futures for my intention of going to the store the next day.

The past is certain, as you state, becuz it has already happened, & we can't go back & change it. At least not yet. We may never be able to change the past, it may turn out to be fundamentally impossible to do that. A future is definitely certain, & past events (causuality) do determine which future will occur. But, according to the Heisenberg Principle, just becuz we know precisely what happened in the past, we still cannot calculate the future, only a range of possibilities.

I believe I have addressed everything in your post. I think. :think:

ps, I don't reject the Heisenberg Principle either. I can't, my whole life is a testimony to it :blink:

[scameter]

The Heisenberg Principle states that you cannot know both the precise location and momentum of a particle simultaneously, therefore its future cannot be determined. You cannot calculate the future location of a particle, only a range of possible trajectories. Thomas has an audioclip of Heisenberg explaining his principle in subatomic terms.

Yes indeed, I know. I simply thought that it was also called the Uncertainty Principle.

if we know precisely where we are at- & hopefully we all do

Scientifically, sure. Philosophically, such certainty cannot exist.

But, as we all know, stuff happens, & alot of stuff can happen in 24 hours.

Practically, everything happens in a second. The entirety of existence is contained in a second, or minute, or hour, or day, etc.

A future is definitely certain

Probably. But philosophically, no.

But, according to the Heisenberg Principle, just becuz we know precisely what happened in the past, we still cannot calculate the future, only a range of possibilities.

Indeed. Which is why philosophically, probability is limiting and narrowing, and should be avoided, in philosophy. For science, it's perfectly fine. If not necessary. As well as things like history.

I believe I have addressed everything in your post. I think.

:D You made your own post.

ps, I don't reject the Heisenberg Principle either. I can't, my whole life is a testimony to it

If you believe it, sure. Just like to some, their lives are testimonies of God. :)

oh Scam. as usual, your brain is way ahead of your mouth. Or your fingers. Whatever.

:lol: That's why I stutter and have OCD!

[sonrisa]

hmmmm.... now you appear to be babbling for the sake of babbling....

you had questions about the future & the Heisenberg Principle (which goes by a bunch of names. My teacher called it the Heisenberg Principle) I attempted to answer (as best I could) your questions within the terms of the Principle. You can accept it or reject it. As I said, Einstein rejected it. *shrug*

but I will suggest this- :D if you don't know where your at- then you had better go find yourself!! :D

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

Life has no goal. You must make your own goals and give meaning to your own life. Death is merley somthing you have been through into. You do not wish to die but you have no choice becuase you/something/someone else in a past life of sorts did somthing that permits you to have to go through birth and death. You need not suffer over death though. You must excpet death as a part of life and face it with courage so that it will not cause you suffering.

[Smurf]

I would reject the Heisenberg principle - because I believe that just because we silly humans with our meagre analytical skills just haven't been able to predict exactly what will happen. If there is a cause to everything, a reason for things to happen. Cause and Effect, or domino effect etc... then we should be able to gauge exactly what will happen. Think of life as a veeery complicated domino set. But hey my opinion *shrugs too* :P

[scameter]

hmmmm.... now you appear to be babbling for the sake of babbling....

Another ASSumption. :)

if you don't know where your at- then you had better go find yourself!!

That is a bit deeper than I think you thought when you posted it. Not knowing where you are, and attempting to find yourself can be said in many things as being the goal of life, as well as in other fields to be a particular objective, such as in drug rehabilitation.

[sonrisa]

an ASSumption on your part- the operative word in my sentence is "appear"

perhaps you would care to elaborate on your cryptic responses in the post that I was referring to- as it stands now your post makes no sense. And so my remark that you appear to be babbling.

[scameter]

the operative word in my sentence is "appear"

Which would mean that to you, I was babbling. That was how it appeared to you, that I was babbling, simply for the sake of babbling.

perhaps you would care to elaborate on your cryptic responses in the post that I was referring to- as it stands now your post makes no sense. And so my remark that you appear to be babbling.

They weren't cryptic, nor was I babbling, much less simply to babble.

[sonrisa]

oh

so you don't know what you were talking about either, then

[scameter]

Why wouldn't I?

[sonrisa]

oh I dunno

maybe you're just hotdogging it, trying to pass off confusing nonsense as something deep & profound when in actuality it's neither

but if you do know what you're talking about.....

then prove it-

stop tap dancing around & explain your post disputing the Heisenberg Principle

[Smurf]

:dunno: :uninvolved:

[sonrisa]

:D

g'day Smurfie!

[Smurf]

:lol:

now what was Scameter trying to say?

[scameter]

maybe you're just hotdogging it, trying to pass off confusing nonsense as something deep & profound when in actuality it's neither

I am doing no such thing.

stop tap dancing around & explain your post disputing the Heisenberg Principle

I didn't dispute that principle, nor am I tapdancing in any form.

[sonrisa]

Well then, let's review these comments:

Sonrisa--if we know precisely where we are at- & hopefully we all do

Scam-- Scientifically, sure.

-- well the last time I looked, physics is a science. ...

Scam- such certainity cannot exist.

-- oh really? why not?

Sonrisa--But, as we all know, stuff happens, & alot of stuff can happen in 24 hours.

Scam--Practically, everything happens in a second. The entirety of existence is contained in a second, or minute, or hour, or day, etc.

-- hmmm.... I know of seconds & minutes where nothing has happened.

Sonrisa--A future is definitely certain

Scam--Probably. But philosophically, no.

-- ok theoretically, according to the HP, there could possibly be a future where time runs out, in other words there would be no future. But from what we know of time, it is very unlikely. Especially if what some scientists have recently theorized turns out to be true- that time existed before the BB (& was not created with it), & will continue to exist after the Big Crunch. This would indicate that time is infinite, if so then yes, there will always be a future, we just can't determine which one.

Sonrisa--But, according to the Heisenberg Principle, just becuz we know precisely what happened in the past, we still cannot calculate the future, only a range of possibilities.

Scam--Indeed. Which is why philosophically, probability is limiting and narrowing, and should be avoided,

-- so are you avoiding it?

Scam-- For science, it's perfectly fine. If not necessary. As well as things like history.

---- again, last time I looked, physics is a science. And how would probablity apply to history? History is the past. The past. as you yourself pointed out, is certain--- we cannot change it. At any rate we're talking physics here, not history.

[scameter]

well the last time I looked, physics is a science. ...

Even though you didn't specify that you were talking about physics, I agree, as I said. Scientifically, what you said is true. Philosophically, however, it is debatable.

oh really? why not?

Because we are bound by inevitable subjectivity and cannot possess enough of true objectivity to know anything for certain, philosophically speaking.

hmmm.... I know of seconds & minutes where nothing has happened.

You are thinking of change. That is not what I meant. The entirety of existence is contained in any certain amount of time meant that every single instance of time contains all of existence, whether changing or not. If you stopped existence during one second of time, the entirety of existence would be within it, for example.

ok theoretically, according to the HP, there could possibly be a future where time runs out, in other words there would be no future. But from what we know of time, it is very unlikely. Especially if what some scientists have recently theorized turns out to be true- that time existed before the BB (& was not created with it), & will continue to exist after the Big Crunch. This would indicate that time is infinite, if so then yes, there will always be a future, we just can't determine which one.

"Theoretically" is the key term there. Scientifically, sure, what you said is true. Philosophically, it is doubtable.

so are you avoiding it?

Philosophically sure.

again, last time I looked, physics is a science. And how would probablity apply to history? History is the past. The past. as you yourself pointed out, is certain--- we cannot change it. At any rate we're talking physics here, not history.

If I haven't forgotten, this is a discussion board, not a strict essay board. I said history because probability would also apply to it, and this is because we cannot look into the past and simply see how it happened and record it. We must go by what is most probable by the evidence we have in the current. But, as I said above, you never specified physics, but even so, physics is a science yes, and in science probability is quite valuable.

[Smurf]

I must interject here

ok ok

You are thinking of change. That is not what I meant. The entirety of existence is contained in any certain amount of time meant that every single instance of time contains all of existence, whether changing or not. If you stopped existence during one second of time, the entirety of existence would be within it, for example.

if nothing changes in that second then nothing is happening :duh:

[scameter]

So time is only change?

[Kether]

We must go by what is most probable by the evidence we have in the current.
Then you do believe in the value of probability. But not 'philosophically'. You've made much of this distinction between 'philosophically' and 'scientifically' in this post; I only h0pe you don't lose sight of what I think you would normally accept as the joys of philosophy.
Thomas said in the Raison d'Etre of The Big View that 'If life is a journey, then philosophy is like a compass. It helps us to find our way through the jungle of possibilities that life presents.' This is close to my views on the subject: I believe, or at least feel, that philosophy should be a positive asset to humanity, something that aids our search for the truth and our quest to make the world a better place, not something that labels every proposition as impossible just because the evidence is uncertain.
I recall you saying in 'Atheism versus Agnosticism' that "everything should have a philosophical probability of 0." Here are my arguments against that statement; I have taken the liberty of inventing a name for the philosophy it expresses - "universal impossibility theory".

1) If we give every proposition a probability of 0, then we will be led to contradictions. "God exists" and "God does not exist" cannot both have a probability of 0: if one is true, the other is false.
2) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because something might not be true doesn't give it a probability of 0 - and contrary to your belief that universal impossibility is the only way of taking into account their uncertainty, giving all propositions a probability of 0 actually ignores the uncertainty of propositions. All beliefs have a probability of something between 1 and 0, but not exactly 1 or 0. This takes into account uncertainty, yet by believing the most likely proposition, we can get somewhere in terms of finding knowledge, even if we have to constantly reassess the probability of our beliefs to make sure that new knowledge does not lower their probability - which is basically the same as what philosophers and scientists have been doing for centuries.
3) Universal impossibility theory has unpleasant consequences, that - when accepted - retard the quest for knowledge and reduction of suffering, which are the goals of philosophy and the search for knowledge, and of morality: two major elements of humanity's spiritual aspects. Retarding philosophy and science is perhaps the more ironic of the two, since scepticism is part of philosophy: sceptical philosophy is suicidal philosophy. Moreover, scepticism simply can't work in 'real life' situations. Imagine a criminal trial where judge, jury, and advocates were employing a Cartesian cognitive style! Enough said.
Now, to avoid accepting the logical consequences of universal impossibility, you - like most sceptics - can take care to distance your philosophy from the rest of existence. However, I strongly believe that philosophy should act as a 'compass', not as something that has to be isolated and treated with careful conditional statements to avoid destroying society.

My third point is based on my own subjective viewpoint, and you can discount it if you wish. It's just one of the reasons why I don't agree with scepticism. As for the first two arguments, I think they're logically sound.
I hope I haven't sounded too aggressive in this post; if I have, it was unintentional.

[scameter]

Then you do believe in the value of probability. But not 'philosophically'. You've made much of this distinction between 'philosophically' and 'scientifically' in this post; I only h0pe you don't lose sight of what I think you would normally accept as the joys of philosophy.

The reason I made this abrupt distinction is because in my view, and I have tried to make this view as accurate as possible, philosophy assumes absolutely nothing, because to do so would limit one's views and mind into thinking one thing is possibly moreso something than is another, which is limiting and should not be pursued in philosophy. To me, the joys of philosophy are the ability to look at life and everything therein and without with no limitations; with the most open mind possible, in order to make one's self able to see everything equally and at everything with the same amount of respect, not to cut out one thing in favor for another for any reason at all, including logic, reason, probability or anything else. But, science could not exist is some things were not assumed; for instance, if science did not assume that reality exists, evidence from reality can be identified by us, and that our logic is an able and valid way of considering this evidence into truth, it could not exist. Philosophy, however, does not require this; one could just as easly, for example, think reality exists as one could think it is a dream or illusion. Science does not concern it's self with these things because they are not necessary to it's goals of understanding experiencable reality. Philosophy deals with what isn't necessarily necessary or unnecessary; it deals with everything equally, in an attempt to totally see things without bounds. Perhaps my view of it is wrong, or perhaps my views suit into a particular type of philosophy. Trust me, this is something I have tried to discover and still am.

This is close to my views on the subject: I believe, or at least feel, that philosophy should be a positive asset to humanity, something that aids our search for the truth and our quest to make the world a better place, not something that labels every proposition as impossible just because the evidence is uncertain.

And this is where our views differ. I think if we say a proposition is possible, even if it is uncertain, we become limited in our view of the truth.

1) If we give every proposition a probability of 0, then we will be led to contradictions. "God exists" and "God does not exist" cannot both have a probability of 0: if one is true, the other is false.

Not necessarily.

2) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because something might not be true doesn't give it a probability of 0 - and contrary to your belief that universal impossibility is the only way of taking into account their uncertainty, giving all propositions a probability of 0 actually ignores the uncertainty of propositions.

I disagree. If something might be true, then it is limiting to say that it might be by any particular scale, including probability. Probability assumes that we are capable of guessing correctly; I do not think philosophy should have this limitation.

This takes into account uncertainty, yet by believing the most likely proposition, we can get somewhere in terms of finding knowledge

Again I disagree. I do not think philosophy is just about knowledge. I think it is about wisdom, and I think that wisdom is the ability to see the truth, and I think because of this, knowledge is apart of wisdom, but is not wisdom in it's entirety; mainly because knowledge is too definite and settled.

3) Universal impossibility theory has unpleasant consequences, that - when accepted - retard the quest for knowledge and reduction of suffering, which are the goals of philosophy

They are? I thought those were the goals of religion, science and medicine?

Moreover, scepticism simply can't work in 'real life' situations.

Of course not! Science, evidence and logic is used in real life situations, as well as common sense. Philosophy is not about those things. The truth isn't always easy, best or moral.

However, I strongly believe that philosophy should act as a 'compass', not as something that has to be isolated and treated with careful conditional statements to avoid destroying society.

I don't think philosophy is capable of destroying anything, or creating anything, besides mental things. It is a conceptual, mental journey, not a practical, applied one. Science is not about conceptuality, for instance; it is about the search for knowledge and it's application, with it's limiting bounds such as belief in evidence. Philosophy is not practical.

I hope I haven't sounded too aggressive in this post; if I have, it was unintentional.

:P Not at all. I just hope my post wasn't too long; I wanted to reply to all of yours. :D

[Thomas Knierim]

I think the assumption that the conceptual world, the world of ideas, to which philosophy belongs, is somehow separate from the real world, separate from our existence, is untenable to put it mildly (or should I say schizophrenic?). Ideas and beliefs are more than mere pastimes; they are a part of life. It is possible to view philosophy from an academic angle and play with ideas anc concepts without actually taking them seriously. But ultimately, we find ourselves always in a certain position to them, wich is defined by our attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. Contrary to what sceptics believe, there are indeed transcendent, universal, eternal truths. Logic, arithmetic, ethics, for example. Philosophy investigates their meaning for our existence. In so far, yes, philosophy is a positive asset. :)

Cheers, Thomas

[Smurf]

So time is only change?

no no no

Scam--Practically, everything happens in a second. The entirety of existence is contained in a second, or minute, or hour, or day, etc.


and

You are thinking of change. That is not what I meant. The entirety of existence is contained in any certain amount of time meant that every single instance of time contains all of existence, whether changing or not. If you stopped existence during one second of time, the entirety of existence would be within it, for example.

For something to happen something must be different, capture a second of time and there is nothing happening in it because nothing is changing, I did not say that time is change because it isn't it is just a guage with which we use to measure.

[scameter]

I think the assumption that the conceptual world, the world of ideas, to which philosophy belongs, is somehow separate from the real world, separate from our existence, is untenable to put it mildly (or should I say schizophrenic?). Ideas and beliefs are more than mere pastimes; they are a part of life.

I do not think they are seperate from life. I think that are quite real. But, I think they are different, just as, say, a leg is different from an arm. In conceptuality, we can understand things larger than we can see or touch at once; we can create things nonexistant in regular reality; and we can manipulate those concepts without ever applying them. One could be a philosopher and never apply their ideas.

Contrary to what sceptics believe, there are indeed transcendent, universal, eternal truths. Logic, arithmetic, ethics, for example.

From a certain point of view. To assume definitely any of that is to limit your vision. I think that truth exists, and that logic is valid, but not definitely.

For something to happen something must be different, capture a second of time and there is nothing happening in it because nothing is changing, I did not say that time is change because it isn't it is just a guage with which we use to measure.

I disagree, because that is gauging time by change and change's effect, occurance. That is not what I meant by happening. Something can be entirely static and unchanging and still be within time and still be happening.

[Smurf]

Something can be entirely static and unchanging and still be within time and still be happening.

if something is static and/or unchanging then it is not in a verbal state? therefore it is not doing anything, thus nothing is happening?

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: From a certain point of view. To assume definitely any of that is to limit your vision. I think that truth exists, and that logic is valid, but not definitely.

I don't understand your statement. What does it mean for anything be "non-definitely valid"? That's a very strange terminology. Perhaps you mean something has "relative" validity, meaning it is true in some reference frames and false in others? If it is this what you mean I can certainly think of many statements which fall into this category. But there are some statements which have absolute validity. For example, the statement "1+1=2" has universal validity. This means it is valid in any corner of the universe at any time, even before humanity came into being. Or do you think differently?

Cheers, Thomas

[da Nyo]

Originally posted by @--
"Death is tha goal of all life" Sigmond Freud
Do you agree or disagree?
Why?
In one aspect, I am leaning towards agreeing...however, in another I am inclined to disagree...here are my reasons:

I believe the subconcious goal of the body, once it is born, is to begin it's, sometimes slow...sometimes unnervingly fast, decay into death. I believe this is the body's goal. It is the natural order of things...to be born...to live...and ultimately die. Perhaps, we...as a people...think of death as we are so adamently living life. How you may ask? Well...it's simple really...we want to live a life...that will be remembered, when we are dead. So...is it our ultimate goal to die? No. I have to disagree there, but...I do believe...it's our ultimate goal...to live so well, that we die in glory.

So...in closing, one may argue, with these opinions...that it -is- our goal to die...and generally speaking, this could very well be true...but, I believe that it's more...leaving a legacy...not just leaving.

[scameter]

if something is static and/or unchanging then it is not in a verbal state? therefore it is not doing anything, thus nothing is happening?

A verbal state? But, still, you're focusing too much on change as being time. Maybe I shouldn't have said happening, because it conjures too much the concept of change. I meant that within any amount of time, say a second, the entirety of everything exists within time; if you froze one second in time, everything would be within it. Not exactly like the next minute, but everything would still be contained within that second. The carrying capacity of an amount of time of matter is infinite.

What does it mean for anything be "non-definitely valid"?

I meant that, for instance, I think that logic is valid, but that is only a propositional theory of mine; it's not definite. If I discovered that logic was not valid for truth somehow, for instance, I would not be hurt or anything, because I would have already been open to the possibility of it being invalid.

Perhaps you mean something has "relative" validity, meaning it is true in some reference frames and false in others?

Somewhat. But I also meant it's objective validity.

For example, the statement "1+1=2" has universal validity.

Of course it does, because we invented it. To us, 1+1=2, because we have our human logic and that equation is from that logic, it is absolutely valid. If we didn't have this human logic, perhaps that statement wouldn't be absolutely valid. And, furthermore, from a philosophical standpoint it may not be valid; it may be that we simply see it incorrectly, for instance.

This means it is valid in any corner of the universe at any time, even before humanity came into being. Or do you think differently?

Indeed I do, which is probably explained by what I said above; because it is a human concept by human logic. It is similar to that, for instance, if our eyes could not see green we would know of no such concept or thing; but, that doesn't mean it doesn't or can't exist.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: If I discovered that logic was not valid for truth somehow, for instance, I would not be hurt or anything, because I would have already been open to the possibility of it being invalid.

This is why I have problems with relativism and scepticism. It is basically an evasionist position, which strikes me as cowardly. Relativism is very popular in today's world. It's motto seems to be: everything depends on one's perspective. If we followed this logic to where it naturally leads, we would find that if you don't believe in anything you will never be disappointed; if you don't love anything, you will never be hurt; and if you don't take anything to be true, you will never be proven wrong. It appears to be the perfect psychological defense system. Unfortunately it also results in perfect isolation from the spiritual world. You will never know aspiration, you will never know love, and you will never know truth.

To cut a long story short: Relativism is a trap. It's hiding from truth.

scameter: To us, 1+1=2, because we have our human logic and that equation is from that logic, it is absolutely valid. If we didn't have this human logic, perhaps that statement wouldn't be absolutely valid.

So you propose that arithmetic depends on the specific characteristics of the human brain? You contend that a non-human intelligence does not necessarily have a concept of arithmetics? Just to be clear, let me explain what 1+1=2 means. It means there is a concept of singularity (1) and of duality (2), and that two single entities taken together result in duality. These concepts are so fundamental that I cannot imagine an intelligence without it. Concepts such as these are the very definition of intelligence. A non-human intelligence might express arithmetics differently of course, using different symbols, and perhaps a base-4 or base-16 number system, or whatever, but the fundamental axioms of integer arithmetics remain unaffected.

scameter: It is similar to that, for instance, if our eyes could not see green we would know of no such concept or thing...

It appears you haven't thought about this much. Seeing green is not at all like formulating arithmetics. The word "green" stands for a direct sense impression from our eyes. As such it is dependent on our nervous system. Although it is likely that an alien life form has eyes (because the law of evolution is universal), its nervous system is probably completely different from ours, and therefore what we call "green" may be either undetectable or of completly different meaning to it. Arithmetics, on the other hand, is about fundamental noumena, not about sense impressions.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

To cut a long story short: Relativism is a trap. It's hiding from truth.

I agree, I dislike relativism too. Although I didn't see your argument against skepticism in the paragraph against relativism.

These concepts are so fundamental that I cannot imagine an intelligence without it.

Of course not. What other intelligences are there that we can communicate with that share those concepts with us?

Concepts such as these are the very definition of intelligence.

Does this include the cultures that do not have math?

As such it is dependent on our nervous system. Although it is likely that an alien life form has eyes (because the law of evolution is universal), its nervous system is probably completely different from ours, and therefore what we call "green" may be either undetectable or of completly different meaning to it.

Obviously you did not entirely read what I said. I was not talking about the word green, I was talking about the colour green on the colour spectrum of light that we are capable of seeing with our eyes, unlike many other animals and perhaps even unlike humans that lived thousands of years before current human beings. I was saying that if we could not see the colour green with our eyes, we would have no knowledge of it, whether it exists in the light spectrum or not. Just as, for instance, if we could not see a cow, we would have no knowledge of the cow animal. That was the point I was trying to make.

Arithmetics, on the other hand, is about fundamental noumena, not about sense impressions.

Mathematics is about the congregation and physicalization of our conceptual logic into symbols and set concepts. Thus, to really understand where math comes from, we must understand what logic is and from whence it derives.

anyway in the case of 1+1=2 it is a rule and a rule is something that is true at all times in all places

And, we are capable of making such laws? What we create and title rules are what we engineer to be rules. They are capable of change as we change them.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: Does this include the cultures that do not have math?

What cultures are there that don't have math? All cultures know at least how to count. Integer arithmetics follows from counting. A culture that does not know counting can probably not be called intelligent.

scameter: Obviously you did not entirely read what I said. I was not talking about the word green, I was talking about the colour green on the colour spectrum of light that we are capable of seeing with our eyes...

It doesn't matter, because we don't need to distinguish between the word green and for what it stands. We simply deal with the meanings of these words. You were comparing the concept of green with the concept of arithmetics. In other words, you were comparing apples with oranges. You argued that because we are wired to see "green", the concept would depend on our human perception, which is true, but then you stated that he same would be true for arithmetic. This is not the case, because arithmetic does not depend on human perception.

scameter: If we didn't have this human logic, perhaps that statement wouldn't be absolutely valid.

This is relativism! A few sentences earlier you had rejected relativism. It doesn't seem to be consistent.

scameter: And, furthermore, from a philosophical standpoint it may not be valid; it may be that we simply see it incorrectly, for instance.

We don't see it incorrectly. Integer arithmetics is a system which is independent of our judgement. It is not a human fabrication. It is a property of mind. When you study abstract algebra, you will come across other arithmetics in which numbers and operations are defined differently. Some of these arithmetics are useful to express certain phenomena, for example boolean arithmetics (in which 1 + 1 = 1) is useful to express states of digital circuits. It doesn't mean that one or another is more valid. Natural integer arithmetic is just more useful for most uses.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

What cultures are there that don't have math? All cultures know at least how to count. Integer arithmetics follows from counting. A culture that does not know counting can probably not be called intelligent.

Well, as far as I know of course, many native North American, African and probably Austrailian cultures do/did not have math.

You were comparing the concept of green with the concept of arithmetics.

Not really. I was comparing the point I made concerning the colour green with mathematics.

You argued that because we are wired to see "green", the concept would depend on our human perception, which is true, but then you stated that he same would be true for arithmetic. This is not the case, because arithmetic does not depend on human perception.

Actually, that was not my entire point about the colour green. I argued that if we could not perceive with our eyes the colour green, as many other animals cannot do, we would not know anything about green; the word would not even exist. And, if we did not have logic and the capability for conceptuality, we could not have mathematics; nor do logic and conceptuality necessarily certify the existence of mathematics. Those are required, but it takes more than that, namely the effort and curiosity of the inventors of mathematics, to create it. If we did not have awareness/consciousness and logic, as many animals do not, we would not have mathematics, especially in the complexity and order we do now. The reason some other animals are capable of doing math is mainly for one, because we give them food if they do it right, and for two, because they have instinctual logic and are capable of thinking "Remember what these people say=food". Well, not just like that, but you know what I mean. We, on the other hand, have logic and awareness inherently, and the evolution of these two into an ordered set of symbols to physicalize our logic is what created math; that effort, that choice. The reason we are capable of seeing mathematics in nature is the same reason we can see logic in nature: because our minds and congruent and in obvious relation to nature and are inseperable from each other. Thus, this, combined with our consciousness, we have logic. Mathematics, as I said previously, can be followed from this knowledge relatively easily.

This is relativism! A few sentences earlier you had rejected relativism. It doesn't seem to be consistent.

I wasn't being relativistic. I was simply being factual, and speculative. If we did not have human consciousness as it is, as well as human logic, perhaps we would not have mathematics, especially not as it is now.

We don't see it incorrectly. Integer arithmetics is a system which is independent of our judgement. It is not a human fabrication. It is a property of mind.

Human mind. If it is independant of our judgement, why aren't we born with knowledge of it? Why is it that we had to sit around and think it up? Or, are you saying that we use integer mathematics naturally, it's just that the actual forming of that aspect of our minds into a system of symbols and such isn't inherent, it took effort? If this is so, and we use it all the time, then why does it take effort for one to understand integer mathematics?

Some of these arithmetics are useful to express certain phenomena, for example boolean arithmetics (in which 1 + 1 = 1) is useful to express states of digital circuits. It doesn't mean that one or another is more valid. Natural integer arithmetic is just more useful for most uses.

Well, actually I have studied algebra a little bit, but how is this possible? How can one plus one equal one? And, what do you mean natural integer mathematics is just more useful? Is there another way that is perhaps more correct but less easy?

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: And, if we did not have logic and the capability for conceptuality, we could not have mathematics...

"Conceptuality" is not even a word. What you are trying to express in the above statement is really that mathematics depends on intelligence. -Now wait a minute.- That's exactly what I've been saying, isn't it? I've been saying that arithmetics (and logic and math in a larger sense) are properties of (an intelligent) mind. I see the human mind merely as an instantiation of intelligence. A fairly limited instantiation...

The important thing to remember is that arithmetics and logic require abstract symbolic operations. Humans are capable of such operations. Most animals are not capable of them. However, recent research suggests that some mammals, chimpanzees for example, have at least a basic idea of counting, so the question whether we are the only species that counts is moot.

What about hypothetical alien life forms? Can we call them "intelligent" if they don't perform symbolic operations? I doubt it! In fact, first order logic and integer arithmetics are probably the litmus test for intelligence.

Certainly there are other forms of cognition, for example social cognition, aural/musical cognition, and several others, which are sometimes called "intelligences". Social and intrapersonal coginition taken together is popularly called "emotional intelligence", although I think such transfiguration of terminology is not very fortunate.

Scameter: Well, actually I have studied algebra a little bit, but how is this possible? How can one plus one equal one?

If you have to ask this question, then you haven't really studied algebra. It doesn't surprise me, because abstract algebra is usually taught towards the end of the secondary level, if at all. You will probably learn it in a few years.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

Scam-- well, as far as I know, of course, many Native North American cultures.... decided not to have math


-- who told you that? Do you know, for instance, that the Mayan calendar is one of the most accurate in the world? Even more accurate than the Roman calendar we use? That the Maya & Aztec had to know geometry to lay out their pyramids? That the mound building nations had to know geometry to lay out their mounds & effigies? Of course the native nations all had counting systems. They were rooted in nature- they counted by hunting seasons, or the seasons of the year, or by the appearance of certain animals. Then of course, there's that old chestnut "many moons ago".... They have words for numbers. Where did you get the idea that Native Americans "decided" not to do math or counting?

[scameter]

Sonrisa, you messed up my words. I said that North American native tribes didn't have mathematics, which is probably false because something cannot be intelligent without having math because it is an integral aspect of the intelligent brain, as I've learned from our wonderful teacher Thomas. Nor did I say even before learning this that they chose to not have math. I know that the Central American native cultures had math.

[sonrisa]

Psyche-- :thumbsup:

Scam, I'm sorry, I most certainly did screw that up. I accidently deleted the last few words of your post after I pasted it. Normaly I'm very good about double checking the original post to make sure I pasted everything right, but this morning I was very tired & didn't do that. Instead I just keyed in what I thought I had read. Infact, that's what made the post stand out for me (they decided not to have math? huh? :blink: ) So let me rephrase my questions to you:

where did you get the idea that Native Americans do/did not have math? Who told you that?

[scameter]

shows something doesn't it about what you think you don't want

Not really. Just shows how easily minds can be broken.

Scam, I'm sorry, I most certainly did screw that up. I accidently deleted the last few words of your post after I pasted it. Normaly I'm very good about double checking the original post to make sure I pasted everything right, but this morning I was very tired & didn't do that. Instead I just keyed in what I thought I had read. Infact, that's what made the post stand out for me (they decided not to have math? huh? )

:P No problem. :)

where did you get the idea that Native Americans do/did not have math? Who told you that?

Well, they didn't have written language, I essentially just kind of assumed. But, other than that, I think I've read it somewhere. But, trust me, I wasn't saying it negatively; nor that they don't have the capacity to think mathematically, just as they were capable of language without it written. I simply meant that they didn't have written, order and established arithmetic as Western and I think Eastern nations did/do.

[namtso]

I believe the subconcious goal of the body, once it is born, is to begin it's, sometimes slow...sometimes unnervingly fast, decay into death.

da Nyo,
I was wondering what you meant by "goal"? Stating it that way seems to imply that the body has a "body consciousness" that also prefers death over life. Some philosophical disciplines (and apparently Edgar Cayce) do accept a body consciousness but I wonder about the body having a goal as you define it.

[namtso]

Life has no goal. You must make your own goals and give meaning to your own life. Death is merley somthing you have been through into. You do not wish to die but you have no choice becuase you/something/someone else in a past life of sorts did somthing that permits you to have to go through birth and death. You need not suffer over death though. You must excpet death as a part of life and face it with courage so that it will not cause you suffering.
I agree and I think this is in agreement with Buddhist principles too.

[namtso]

I just wanted to mention that there's a "MOND" theory in physics now that has the potential to replace string theory. That could potentially eliminate the idea of multiple realities, multiple or infinite dimensions. Multiple realities never felt quite right to me anyway. I first read about that idea in the Seth Speaks, Seth Material books by Jane Roberts. Kind of sent my noggin spinning. I know pretty much zip about physics but I have watched some movies that explain these theories fairly well.
i.e. Nova - The Elegant Universe (2003) with Brian Greene
and What the Bleep Do We Know!? (2004)(which in my opinion is mostly hype)
and as I mentioned, the Seth books got into that from a spiritual perspective.


MOND Theory -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newt...tonian_Dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics)

[sonrisa]

& channeling Seth isn't alot of hype?

[______]

Is there a "goal" in life?

Well, if you consider being compassionate to all things a "goal", then yes!

Is there a difference between the "goal" of life and the "meaning" of life?

[Brahmanyan]

Death is born with birth and continues like a Shadow. All that are born have to die one day. Death is decay of matter that is the body. Athma (soul) has no birth or death. All that has a beginning have an end too.

[MidnightSun]

Birth is the begining of death.

[scameter]

The Bible says that we should cry when a baby is born, and thrill for those who die, because a newborn is born into a sinful and harsh world with a restricted life, while someone who dies is gifted with the ability to leave this sinful, harsh world and restricted life and to join God in Heaven.

[______]

Then the bible is ignorant on that subject.

We should rejoice at both the beggining and the end. For this child is born into a world with a chance to gain much wisdom and when they die, they are taking their next step to Nirvana.

[namtso]

& channeling Seth isn't alot of hype? - sonrisa

Absolutely! I eventually became very disinterested with the Seth books and I don't really believe she was channeling. I don't rule it out completely since there's no way I could personally know for sure. But I eventually got the feeling that the Seth books were just a source of income for Jane Roberts and her husband.



Here's an Amazon.com review about the movie "What the bleep.." It's not mine, I just happened upon it. It's not the first time I've read this kind of thing regarding the movie.
Yeah, it starts off harmlessly enough, but this is basically a recruitment video for the RSE cult. Type ramtha and then a period and COM in your address bar to learn more. I think that you will recognise the woman on that page as the one interviewed in the video. One of the professors (I can't remember which) was really angered that they asked him questions to deliberatly mislead him into saying things that if taken out of context could support the premise of this film. To read a proper scientific review, go to the website for the guardian newspaper (England) and search for an article called "The minds boggle". Put quotes around the search string to find your result quicker. It's from May 16 2005.

[...]

..please set fire to your bible scam, let the flames devour the evil that is it's dogma and set you free!

[______]

:lol: :lol: :lol: I don't think it should come to that!

Though it's dogma is "evil", it has a good message at it's core.

[scameter]

:D Good, you people responded just as I anticipated. Amazing how the view of the Bible has changed over the centuries. In the Dark Ages it kept everything academic and intelligent alive through the barbarians, and in the Middle Ages it gave the code of chivalry to knights, and it's monks also established many scientific discoveries and theories, such as genetic inheritance that still holds true, and in the early 20th century it was a central to many peoples' lives, and yet now it has become an "evil", whereas science is the new religion of choice. Funny how things happen. :)

[______]

Perhaps it is a necessary "evil"? :think:

[...]

..you conveniently left out the Inquisition, the Crusades, witch burnings, ignoring women's rights, pedophilia, forced labour [Magdalene Sisters], genocide, rascism, homophobia, the accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor[mother Theresa], retarded views on AIDS and condom use or other birthcontrol products...

[scameter]

Cute use of the word conveniently. I didn't "conveniently" leave those things out. I didn't know I was supposed to give an entire history of the Christian church. If you notice, I was speaking of the Bible; I never mentioned the church. To me, the church is not what makes Christianity. And, anything people do claiming it to be in the name of God/Christ are doing so purely out of their choice. The Bible is not alive, it can't force it's self on people. But, let me ask you something: why do you respond to this? You obviously, like everyone else, hate Christianity, the Bible and essentially anything related to that God, so why do you continue to discuss it? Or, if you are an atheist I can understand why you do. Atheists would rather bitch than just entirely ignore the issue of God and move on.

[MidnightSun]

You obviously, like everyone else, hate Christianity, the Bible and essentially anything related to that God, so why do you continue to discuss it? Or, if you are an atheist I can understand why you do. Atheists would rather bitch than just entirely ignore the issue of God and move on.

Maybe because his mother told him when he was young to go to church on sundays when he watned to play with his friend in the yard, and accept all of the teachings of bible as well as participate in first comunion (if i spelled it right) and so on.

No offence but..

Thats one of the reasons why i dont like church though. My relatives kind of force me to believe whatever church says. The pressure is not big though but anyway this is just annoying.

I think thats the reason for most people to hate church and its teachings, everything happens in childhood like psychologists say :P

[...]

Cute use of the word conveniently. I didn't "conveniently" leave those things out. I didn't know I was supposed to give an entire history of the Christian church. If you notice, I was speaking of the Bible; I never mentioned the church. To me, the church is not what makes Christianity. And, anything people do claiming it to be in the name of God/Christ are doing so purely out of their choice. The Bible is not alive, it can't force it's self on people. But, let me ask you something: why do you respond to this? You obviously, like everyone else, hate Christianity, the Bible and essentially anything related to that God, so why do you continue to discuss it? Or, if you are an atheist I can understand why you do. Atheists would rather bitch than just entirely ignore the issue of God and move on.

..it's in fashion nowadays to throw hatred around as if it applies to anyone else but the one using it. You can't separate the bible from the church if the majority of believers are taught to believe what the bible means BY the church. You are simply parotting someone else's scam. I responded to a notion that's the basis of religious turmoil throughout the ages: life is evil, death is good. If you want to believe that, be my guest, but i won't stop pointing out the utter stupidity of that belief. I don't perceive the believer as equal to his beliefs, but if you are too engrossed with your beliefs and therefore think this is an attack on you, think again. I'd rather discuss the principles of beliefs than the contents of beliefs, because you can believe in the fairy godmother for all i care, but i don't think you'd be up for that. You do have the luxury of not responding to posts however...

[...]

..just for you, scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

[scameter]

Maybe because his mother told him when he was young to go to church on sundays when he watned to play with his friend in the yard, and accept all of the teachings of bible as well as participate in first comunion (if i spelled it right) and so on.

If that is true, then he is indeed even more like everyone else, blaming the Bible and God for the deeds of the church.

I think thats the reason for most people to hate church and its teachings, everything happens in childhood like psychologists say

Definitely, but that is no reason to hate the Bible.

..it's in fashion nowadays to throw hatred around as if it applies to anyone else but the one using it.

Yes, I agree.

You can't separate the bible from the church if the majority of believers are taught to believe what the bible means BY the church.

The Bible isn't dependant on the church, not since Martin Luther anyways. If one wants to read the Bible for themself they merely have to buy one.

I responded to a notion that's the basis of religious turmoil throughout the ages: life is evil, death is good.

That is an extreme simplification of the quote I gave earlier, as well as an inaccurate assumption of what the Bible teaches.

If you want to believe that, be my guest, but i won't stop pointing out the utter stupidity of that belief.

Why? Because you... enjoy doing so perhaps? :)

You do have the luxury of not responding to posts however...

I respond to every single post directed at me.

[...]

If one wants to read the Bible for themself they merely have to buy one.

..sure, but you turn to someone else for an explanation...

That is an extreme simplification of the quote I gave earlier, as well as an inaccurate assumption of what the Bible teaches.

..is it? You're quote was clear enough though, and if that is what the bible teaches, then it's accurate...

Why? Because you... enjoy doing so perhaps?

..no. When people are dying because other's feel they're entitled to kill based on the notion that life isn't worth living for except for death, there's little enjoyment...

[namtso]

..just for you, scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24
* -* ... (etc.)*
Excellent video. One question though, how do we truly know how other animals perceive their existence? Whales are apparently extremely intelligent. Dolphins too. I've heard several stories of a dolphin pushing a diver out of the water because there were sharks in the area feeding. So what was going through the mind of the dolphin when it did that? It was saving an animal that was not even from it's own species. Why? Might be an interesting idea to consider.

I do agree that en masse, humans are often ridiculous, dangerous, vicious, totally self serving, extremely confused, scatter brained and very easily misled.

[scameter]

..sure, but you turn to someone else for an explanation...

If you do, that's your fault.

..is it? You're quote was clear enough though, and if that is what the bible teaches, then it's accurate...

Then obviously it wasn't very clear to you. Or perhaps you want for whatever you say to be true, and in this case your mind is set on the Bible being wrong, so nothing could change your mind.

When people are dying because other's feel they're entitled to kill based on the notion that life isn't worth living for except for death, there's little enjoyment...

Maybe. But, again, that is not what my quote meant; you just assumed it did. Nor is that what the Bible teaches.

[...]

how do we truly know how other animals perceive their existence?

..shouldn't it be enough to know that they perceive their existence?

..sure, but you turn to someone else for an explanation...

If you do, that's your fault.

..how can that be a fault, seeing it's almost impossible to make your own mind up with bibleclasses, sundayschool, preachers, your father telling and explaining it?

Then obviously it wasn't very clear to you. Or perhaps you want for whatever you say to be true, and in this case your mind is set on the Bible being wrong, so nothing could change your mind.

..your words were clear enough though: The Bible says that we should cry when a baby is born, and thrill for those who die, because a newborn is born into a sinful and harsh world with a restricted life, while someone who dies is gifted with the ability to leave this sinful, harsh world and restricted life and to join God in Heaven. It's clear that i find this notion dispicable, but what other meaning could these words have, scam?

Maybe. But, again, that is not what my quote meant; you just assumed it did. Nor is that what the Bible teaches.

..that's the point, isn't it? The bible is open to interpretation and will suit all the different needs out there, regardless of what it's supposed to mean. What did you mean by those words, and what do you think the bible teaches about what you quoted?

[______]

Excellent video. One question though, how do we truly know how other animals perceive their existence? Whales are apparently extremely intelligent. Dolphins too. I've heard several stories of a dolphin pushing a diver out of the water because there were sharks in the area feeding. So what was going through the mind of the dolphin when it did that? It was saving an animal that was not even from it's own species. Why? Might be an interesting idea to consider.

:D I like this dolphin very much. :D

[scameter]

how can that be a fault, seeing it's almost impossible to make your own mind up with bibleclasses, sundayschool, preachers, your father telling and explaining it?

Hrm... well, if you are raised in an open-minded family, and are not forced into influence by any particular religion, then you could read the Bible objectively. Or perhaps if you make the effort to evade seeing your biases. :)

It's clear that i find this notion dispicable, but what other meaning could these words have, scam?

Well, it does not justify killing by any means. It means that babies are born into a harsh, sinful world that will cause them much pain, but when they die, they have the chance to go into blissful heaven beside their Lord God, essentially. It doesn't mean we should all kill ourselves, nor does it justify killing at all. Everyone seems to forget that the Bible isn't an ethics manual to live your life, and it isn't a book on politics; it is a book of philosophy and mythology, with various teachings. You can read it and see them, or not.

..that's the point, isn't it? The bible is open to interpretation and will suit all the different needs out there, regardless of what it's supposed to mean.

No, it isn't the point. The Bible is a book of mythology and philosophy, as I said above, and is up for interpretation, as with any mythology, but that doesn't mean it has no fundamental specific meaning(s). That only means that it's meanings are concrete, nor are they obvious. It takes effort, something many people it seems would rather avoid. They would rather assume and critisize.

What did you mean by those words, and what do you think the bible teaches about what you quoted?

I explained earlier in this post. :)

[...]

..goodmorning :bye:

Hrm... well, if you are raised in an open-minded family, and are not forced into influence by any particular religion, then you could read the Bible objectively. Or perhaps if you make the effort to evade seeing your biases.

..if that were the case, then you have a point. Altough you took this personally, that wasn't my intention. I know you're pretty intelligent, but for the most part, mankind consists of people with a herd-mentality. Sheeple. You must be aware that millions of people around the world did not grow-up in the same circumstances you did, and were affected by the opposite of what you wrote above. This large contingent of people lack the prerequisites to form an independant opinion, and don't even want to. I propose to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and rid society from the instruments that can be implemented to do evil on a grand scale, just as we're seeing in the present, and as we can see in the past...

it is a book of philosophy and mythology, with various teachings.

..you know that millions and millions take what the bible says literally, and you know how everything it says can, and will be, taken out of context to suit the demagogues needs. To rid society of religion is an impossible task, and history teaches us that even under great scrutiny, people will find ways to express their beliefs. Turning a blind eye to the inherent flaws of abrahamic teachings however does allow for demagogues to get away with it. Simply look at the state the Islam is in, and how Bush is playing the christians in the US...

They would rather assume and critisize.

..i don't need to assume that the Q'uran and the bible are abused and interpreted in such a way that it will say what you want to hear. The 'you' in that sentence is the general one. Therefore it is fair to criticize if that abuse impacts life in such a way that everyone feels it's consequences. You reminded me of muslims who lash out in anger when their prophet appears to be criticized, but stay silent when bombs kill in the name of Allah. I kinda took it out on you, which is unfair. I'm sorry for doing that, but can't say my feelings are unwarranted. The religions of Abraham had 2000 years to get it right, and all it did was mess things up. It is time to do something else...

[______]

Purely out of curiosity, dots: What spirituality do you follow?

[...]

Purely out of curiosity, dots: What spirituality do you follow?

..for a while i was quite partial to the nondual approach to life, which overlaps advaita philosophy, but currently i simply follow the flow of life, rowing my boat merrily down the stream, knowing it's just a dream. Does not mean i don't form opinions though :lol:

[scameter]

..if that were the case, then you have a point. Altough you took this personally

I didn't take anything you said personally.

..you know that millions and millions take what the bible says literally, and you know how everything it says can, and will be, taken out of context to suit the demagogues needs.

That's the peoples' fault, not the religion's.

Simply look at the state the Islam is in, and how Bush is playing the christians in the US...

And how the leaders of both are doing it purely for money, as usual. :)

..i don't need to assume that the Q'uran and the bible are abused and interpreted in such a way that it will say what you want to hear.

Of course you don't have to. :)

The religions of Abraham had 2000 years to get it right, and all it did was mess things up. It is time to do something else...

Yes. The doors of the religions of capitalism, science and atheism are wide open and are rapidly filling based on assumptions regarding everything else. :)

[scameter]

..if that were the case, then you have a point. Altough you took this personally

I didn't take anything you said personally.

..you know that millions and millions take what the bible says literally, and you know how everything it says can, and will be, taken out of context to suit the demagogues needs.

That's the peoples' fault, not the religion's.

Simply look at the state the Islam is in, and how Bush is playing the christians in the US...

And how the leaders of both are doing it purely for money, as usual. :)

..i don't need to assume that the Q'uran and the bible are abused and interpreted in such a way that it will say what you want to hear.

Of course you don't have to. :)

The religions of Abraham had 2000 years to get it right, and all it did was mess things up. It is time to do something else...

Yes. The doors of the religions of capitalism, science and atheism are wide open and are rapidly filling based on assumptions regarding everything else. :)

[...]

I didn't take anything you said personally.

..sure scam, whatever you say :P

..you know that millions and millions take what the bible says literally, and you know how everything it says can, and will be, taken out of context to suit the demagogues needs.

That's the peoples' fault, not the religion's.

..not if the religion was created, and the bible was written, for that very purpose...

The religions of Abraham had 2000 years to get it right, and all it did was mess things up. It is time to do something else...

Yes. The doors of the religions of capitalism, science and atheism are wide open and are rapidly filling based on assumptions regarding everything else.

..you're grasping at straws here, and these straws aren't very sturdy. When religion becomes vitally important for someone's selfimage and esteem, nothing that can be said against religion is accepted, or even considered. I read other threads scam, and saw your meltdown there, so don't pretend you're all la-di-da about this :nono:

[______]

..for a while i was quite partial to the nondual approach to life, which overlaps advaita philosophy, but currently i simply follow the flow of life, rowing my boat merrily down the stream, knowing it's just a dream. Does not mean i don't form opinions though

Live the Here and Now! :applause: :dancing:

Thank you for sharing! :thumbsup:

[scameter]

..sure scam, whatever you say

I'm glad you trust me so. :)

..not if the religion was created, and the bible was written, for that very purpose...

Which, if indeed we are doing as I'm trying to get you and other to do, which is to look past the people and see the actual religion instead of blaming the religion on the people, then we could see that's not the case.

When religion becomes vitally important for someone's selfimage and esteem, nothing that can be said against religion is accepted, or even considered. I read other threads scam, and saw your meltdown there, so don't pretend you're all la-di-da about this

Meltdown? I don't remember melting down. But, I'm not holding onto any threads. I go for the truth; it is my single goal when studying and discussing these philosophical issues to break through the bullshit made by society and to see the issue as it truly is. Most people don't want the truth, no matter what they say. I'm not saying I'm better; nor am I saying that the truth doesn't affect me. But it is how I am. If you don't believe it that's only because of you.

[...]

Which, if indeed we are doing as I'm trying to get you and other to do, which is to look past the people and see the actual religion instead of blaming the religion on the people, then we could see that's not the case.

..yes, and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Religion has always been a means to subjugate the masses, a way for the elite to manipulate and control civilians. That religion has done good for some is evident, the fact that it has perpetrated evil on a huge number of people is true aswell. I know this isn't a black or white issue, but sticking your fingers in your ears and go, 'nananana, i can't here you' is turning a blind eye to the obvious...

Most people don't want the truth, no matter what they say

..this is true. You say you go for truth, but don't want to hear it. Death-philosophy is the main tenet of abrahamic religion, of any religion. Drinking cool-aid, suicide bombers, killing abortion doctors, waging war from religious convictions, that is what your religion is about because it promises an afterlife that is better than actually being alive. All because of a figment of the imagination...

[Michael]

The fact is all anyone really knows about life is what they experience. We don't know what it is and we don't know what we are. There are many theories, religious, mathematical, metaphysical, personal. There are no conclusions. Mankind's explanations of itself and the universe are, like the universe, in constant flux. All is change when viewed across the millenia of human history.

Sometimes it seems to me that conclusions are frozen thoughts and feelings, solidified into a form. Like all form they eventually crumble. Unfortunately mankind has an unhappy history of beating up others with these materialised thoughts while they're still solid enough to have impact.

Interestingly I by accident just came across an example iof change and how one little difference can change our while understanding. I typed c instead of g in the last sentence of the above para. For a moment the import of what I was saying was changed completely.

Consciousness lives amidst extraordinary sublty.

So how can we know about death? How can we begin to examine death when we don't even know what consciousness is?

[Michael]

The fact is all anyone really knows about life is what they experience. We don't know what it is and we don't know what we are. There are many theories, religious, mathematical, metaphysical, personal. There are no conclusions. Mankind's explanations of itself and the universe are, like the universe, in constant flux. All is change when viewed across the millenia of human history.

Sometimes it seems to me that conclusions are frozen thoughts and feelings, solidified into a form. Like all form they eventually crumble. Unfortunately mankind has an unhappy history of beating up others with these materialised thoughts while they're still solid enough to have impact.

Interestingly I by accident just came across an example of change and how one little difference can change our whole understanding. I typed c instead of g in the last sentence of the 1st para. For a moment the import of what I was saying was changed completely.

Consciousness lives amidst extraordinary sublty.

So how can we know about death? How can we begin to examine death when we don't even know what consciousness is?

[...]

So how can we know about death? How can we begin to examine death when we don't even know what consciousness is?

..we cannot know or examine death, therefore we can't life live as if death matters. The death of Steve Irwin affected me more than i could've imagined, seeing his 8 or 9 year old daughter reading a letter about her father, without any grief or sadness, but with gladness because he was always fun, still brings tears to my eyes. It is not important to me to know what consciousness is, but to be engulfed by all it contains. Religion, by definition, limits our perspective of life. Granted, for some it might bring a new perspective on life, but life never ends there...

[Michael]

we can't life live as if death matters.

The most alive person I ever met was a little girl who was dying.

[...]

The most alive person I ever met was a little girl who was dying.

..we all die. We are all in the process of dying, for some it's a shorter journey than for other's, and can act as a motivator, that is true...

[Michael]

All I know is that she was happy to be alive and her knowing she was going to die cast no shadow on her joy but deepened it.

[scameter]

Religion has always been a means to subjugate the masses, a way for the elite to manipulate and control civilians. That religion has done good for some is evident, the fact that it has perpetrated evil on a huge number of people is true aswell. I know this isn't a black or white issue, but sticking your fingers in your ears and go, 'nananana, i can't here you' is turning a blind eye to the obvious...

I agree. But, religion, just like in your what you said regarding "guns don't kill people, people kill people", religion is not the problem. People in religions who hurt each other do so because they are people, not because the religion is forcing it's self on them, and if you believe it has you're as superstitious as people claim religious people are. People kill people, people hurt people, people ignore the suffering of other people and cause much of the suffering of other people. This is the thing that should be remembered but is too often forgotten in so many issues.

You say you go for truth, but don't want to hear it.

I don't remember saying that.

Drinking cool-aid, suicide bombers, killing abortion doctors, waging war from religious convictions, that is what your religion is about because it promises an afterlife that is better than actually being alive. All because of a figment of the imagination...

"My" religion? I think both you and sonrisa are mistaken here. I have never liked religious people and I do not now, because of how arrogant and hypocritical they are, and how much they ignore the very teachings of the religion they claim to follow. I have always said this, and it is what I believe now. I do not hate religions; I hate the arrogant hypocrites in them. Religion is not the only figments of imagination in life for people. Math, language, time, emotions, and so many other things are merely products of the imagination. And yet, we cling to all of them religiously. And, another thing.... drinking cool-aid? Is that a destructive aspect of religion now too?

Sometimes it seems to me that conclusions are frozen thoughts and feelings, solidified into a form.

And that is language. Language logicalizes and forms into a structure thoughts and feelings. Of course they crumble, because they are not real; they are conceptual, imaginative, thoughtful. And yet, our entire civilization, indeed our very thoughts, are language-based. Without them, civilization could not exist.

Interestingly I by accident just came across an example of change and how one little difference can change our whole understanding. I typed c instead of g in the last sentence of the 1st para. For a moment the import of what I was saying was changed completely.
Consciousness lives amidst extraordinary sublty.

And look at that: again, language and it's power exemplified, how it can so change everything in human life. That is because of how much we believe in it, and how much it means to us, because of the thoughts and emotions compacted within them.

So how can we know about death? How can we begin to examine death when we don't even know what consciousness is?

Nothing is certain. :)

The most alive person I ever met was a little girl who was dying.

That is because she truly realized she was dying. But, unfortunately, it often takes someone knowing their death is close to be truly alive. If everyone could realize they are going to die, we could all truly live. In the movie The Last Samurai, the samurai leader in it, Katsumoto, explained the Samurai code, Bushido, thusly, after coming from a battle and going into a garden of his: "And then, I come to this place of my ancestors, and I remember... like these blossoms, we are dying. To know, life in every breath, every cup of tea, every life we take. The Way of the Warrior. Bushido." Imagine if we all lived this way, although most people would disagree with the warrior/life-taking bit.

[______]

"And then, I come to this place of my ancestors, and I remember... like these blossoms, we are dying. To know, life in every breath, every cup of tea, every life we take. The Way of the Warrior. Bushido." Imagine if we all lived this way, although most people would disagree with the warrior/life-taking bit.

:lol: I guess you could call me an "American Samurai"! :lol: I do my best to live each moment in the moment, and when called upon, I can act as a "warrior"! :lol:

[...]

religion is not the problem.

..ofcourse it is :lol: It's a very powerful instrument that thrives on the god-lie and the promise of heaven, without any merit. You see, all these religions speak about a god of some sorts, but there's nothing there scam. It is a scam...

I don't remember saying that.

..you wrote this: I go for the truth; it is my single goal when studying and discussing these philosophical issues to break through the bullshit made by society and to see the issue as it truly is. That is a commendable goal, and i applaud your efforts...

Math, language, time, emotions, and so many other things are merely products of the imagination. And yet, we cling to all of them religiously.

..true, but religion is the biggest killer <_<

And, another thing.... drinking cool-aid? Is that a destructive aspect of religion now too?

..Jonestown, French Guyana doesn't ring a bell? It is almost 30 years ago, so i won't hold it against you :D Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

[______]

..true, but religion is the biggest killer
Religion has never killed in all of it's existance. Only the practicioners of religions have killed.

..Jonestown, French Guyana doesn't ring a bell? It is almost 30 years ago, so i won't hold it against you

This was a very sad chapter in religion's history--come to think of it, there may be more sad events in religion than happy ones <_< . What exactly did they believe? Who could be douped into following a man who keeps all the children all day long from thier parents and throws kids into wells for punishment? I know that most were held against their will, but there were still followers.

[...]

Religion has never killed in all of it's existance. Only the practicioners of religions have killed.

..ofcourse it hasn't, but what else do people identify with to such an extent that they will kill many to get a point across?

What exactly did they believe?

Jones developed a belief called Translation in which he and his followers would all die together, and would move to another planet for a life of bliss. http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm

[scameter]

It's a very powerful instrument that thrives on the god-lie and the promise of heaven, without any merit. You see, all these religions speak about a god of some sorts, but there's nothing there scam. It is a scam...

And yet people follow it.

Religion has never killed in all of it's existance. Only the practicioners of religions have killed.

My sentiments exactly. :)

Read this:

lol So, because one group of Christians drank cool-aid, you're condemning the entire thing and the religion? If you do that, then you should condemn anything that has had apart of it that has done wrong deeds, such as science.

..ofcourse it hasn't, but what else do people identify with to such an extent that they will kill many to get a point across?

Hmm... being poor is one, as well as being powerless. If people identify with a religion and kill because of it, that is the fault of the people.

[...]

It's a very powerful instrument that thrives on the god-lie and the promise of heaven, without any merit. You see, all these religions speak about a god of some sorts, but there's nothing there scam. It is a scam...

And yet people follow it.

..people would rather believe a fairytale that has been an instrument for slaughter and abuse for millennia, than own up to the truth that there is no such thing as a god, and that when they die, it is the end. Don't get me wrong, it's understandable because the fear of death is innate and useful for survival, but that doesn't negate the perversion that religion makes death out to be...

[namtso]

..people would rather believe a fairytale that has been an instrument for slaughter and abuse for millennia, than own up to the truth that there is no such thing as a god, and that when they die, it is the end. Don't get me wrong, it's understandable because the fear of death is innate and useful for survival, but that doesn't negate the perversion that religion makes death out to be...
Dots, I wish you'd stop holding back, let loose for once and tell us how you really feel. Kidding, ar ar. I totally understand your scientific/empirical view based on the fact that there's no solid proof for any of the larger than life stuff written about in the Christian Bible and other religious books. And if pressed, I'd probably say that the odds are that you are right on that score. But do you rule out any sort of beings that are more highly developed that we run of the mill humans? Do you rule out anything as even possible that currentlly has no solid scientific data to support it?

[scameter]

people would rather believe a fairytale that has been an instrument for slaughter and abuse for millennia, than own up to the truth that there is no such thing as a god, and that when they die, it is the end.

Even though what you proclaim to be the truth could not possibly be entirely certain, I agree with you. As Hitler said, "People will believe a lie before they will the truth." Because it's what they want to hear. Of course, what you claim to be a fairytale has not been an instrument, but rather an incorrect excuse for slaughter by people claiming to follow it.

And if pressed, I'd probably say that the odds are that you are right on that score.

"Until the possible becomes the actual, it is only a distraction." :)

[namtso]

Dots, here's another nifty suicide group, I scanned it quickly but it may be the same cult as in Jonestown. I really don't understand this level of fanaticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult)


Scam, I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought. Can you expand on what you meant when you said or quoted this -
"Until the possible becomes the actual, it is only a distraction."

[...]

But do you rule out any sort of beings that are more highly developed that we run of the mill humans? Do you rule out anything as even possible that currentlly has no solid scientific data to support it?

..no, i rule out a god-creator as depicted in the various holy books, but am open to life forms that are far more advanced than us. It's a big universe after all. However, until the existence of such beings has been proven, all that remains is conjecture and further beliefs, and i'm no fan of both. I look at how these beliefs affects mankind as a whole, and admit that on the individual level there is some positive influence, but have no problems with blanket statements in regards to religion in general, just to make a point. Strict guncontrol limits the number of gun-related deaths without all of those prevented deaths occuring in a different manner, and altough it will be virtually impossible to rid religion from everyday life, i think limiting it's influence will lead to more stability politically and socially. Yet, as long as religion and politics are intertwined my opinion on these matters are as influential as a flies fart to a hurricane...

[...]

Dots, here's another nifty suicide group, I scanned it quickly but it may be the same cult as in Jonestown. I really don't understand this level of fanaticism.

..they were at it since the '70s, according to the article. It takes years and years of affirmation and indoctrination to convince people another's insanity is so true that suicide becomes an option. Do you see a correlation between cults like these, and religious zealots who believe it's just to kill and to be killed in the name of [insert deity here]? I do, and i also see that the principles to bring people to these actions are the same, because religion is simply a very large cult...

[scameter]

Scam. Most of the time I just don't get you at all. But what the heck, I'll give it a shot. Can you expand on what you meant when you said or quoted this

Nothing that could really be said extra. *shrug* It only essentially says that we are in the present, not the future or past, and dealing with what is possible is only a distraction from seeing reality, until the possible becomes actual/real.

[namtso]

Nothing that could really be said extra. *shrug* It only essentially says that we are in the present, not the future or past, and dealing with what is possible is only a distraction from seeing reality, until the possible becomes actual/real.
I get your point about giving in to distraction but there wouldn't be penicillin if no one ever bothered themself with exploring what's possible. There wouldn't be medicines of any kind. There wouldn't be Tivo, Sony Playstation, surfboards or snow skis. The very thought of it makes me nauseous, the no surfboard or snow ski part at least.

[namtso]

Dots, I want to reply to your two posts but I need to do a few pushups first .....

[...]

Dots, I want to reply to your two posts but I need to do a few pushups first .....

..cool, do you deadlift and do squats too?

[namtso]

Nah, I used to lift weights pretty seriously when I was younger and not out living on my own yet. I don't any more. I've got some relatively light dumbells set up for endurance/maintenance but that's about it. Having a bit of pain in my elbows and forearms that I'm recovering from recently. Blecchhh. The pushup ref. was in regard to my frustrated reply to mr. scam.

Not really sure how to take your last ... Sincerity or sarcasm? Am I getting too big for my britches? Probably. That seems to be a very masculine question about the weightlifting too and you opened up the door, in a way, so let's hear it (read it actually). Are you male or female? Yes, disregarding your bigview avatar as any indication.

as influential as a flies fart to a hurricane...
that's a good one, I'm going to borrow that for work later

Strict guncontrol limits the number of gun-related deaths without all of those prevented deaths occuring in a different manner, and altough it will be virtually impossible to rid religion from everyday life, i think limiting it's influence will lead to more stability politically and socially.
I do see your point about both. A gun does make it way too easy to kill a person, especially due to a person acting out of rage. If all they have is a knife or something like that, the intended victim has a better chance of running away or not sustaining a fatal wound. And in regard to religion and politics, I guess that may be the case. Religion sure does seem to be the rubber stamp seal of approval on some pretty heinous stuff. It's used as more of a manipulation than anything although there are a lot of people who truly do want to live a more peaceful life and do no harm.

..but am open to life forms that are far more advanced than us. It's a big universe after all. However, until the existence of such beings has been proven, all that remains is conjecture and further beliefs, and i'm no fan of both. I look at how these beliefs affects mankind as a whole, and admit that on the individual level there is some positive influence, but have no problems with blanket statements in regards to religion in general, just to make a point.
Excellent. You seem to have a pragmatic and scientific mind. I'm not sure how much Buddhism is capable of being used as an excuse to perpetrate violence at all but it is certain that groups of people will pervert and distort belief systems of any kind in order to further their own agendas so in that sense I agree with what you say. I've also watched a non-profit spiritual organization that started out as a very good thing get taken over by scam artists (pardon the namesake pun there scamster) and it was turned into something quite sick and I think even dangerous. I do however like Buddhism very much and I'm not prepared to accept that it's a belief system that is predisposed to inspiring any sort of violence or unethical or morally corrupt actions. I see it as a tool. A hammer or a baseball bat can be used as a weapon or for what they were originally intended for. It's the individual's intent that determines whether their use is "good or evil". I do concede though that any belief system whether it be Christianity, Democracy or I guess even Buddhism does have the potential to herd the sheeple into some very nasty business. I think that in the case of Christianity and Buddhism, if they are being used to coax people into violence, xenophobic practices or perversions of any kind, then what is being expressed is no longer actually Christianity or Buddhism. Period. But yeah, people are easily misled or just looking for some friggin stamp of legitimacy. It's a real problem, no doubt in my mind.

Ok, I'm outta here for now. I've got to go do some lifting. I'm going to lift some mint chocolate chip ice cream to my mouth. Later dots, have a great one ..

[...]

That seems to be a very masculine question about the weightlifting too and you opened up the door, in a way, so let's hear it (read it actually). Are you male or female? Yes, disregarding your bigview avatar as any indication.

..there's a thread on thebigview somewhere where i posted pics of me for the enjoyement of someone who doesn't post here anymore. I lift weights, male and i have another avatar i prefer over this one, but i don't think Thomas will let me use that one (-:

It's used as more of a manipulation than anything although there are a lot of people who truly do want to live a more peaceful life and do no harm.

..religion in this way speaks to the lowest common denominator, and envokes basic emotions as fear and hatred. It's a dirty business, that much is clear...

But yeah, people are easily misled or just looking for some friggin stamp of legitimacy. It's a real problem, no doubt in my mind.

..i was refering specifically to abrahamic religion, and don't view Buddhism as a religion. Altough Buddhism' passiveness can be abused by politicians, and i'm sure on some level it is, the core of it's philosophy can't be used as an emotional weapon. I really dislike how blind faith blocks any kind of reasonable dialogue to further the best interest of all, instead of a [lucky] few. The same for politics; voting for a party that only has the best interest in mind for it's constituency [and that's all of them, i know] strikes me as odd. Shouldn't we all benefit? It won't surpise you, but i'll be voting for the socialist party in november [dutch general elections]...

[MidnightSun]

QUOTE
That seems to be a very masculine question about the weightlifting too and you opened up the door, in a way, so let's hear it (read it actually). Are you male or female? Yes, disregarding your bigview avatar as any indication.


..there's a thread on thebigview somewhere where i posted pics of me for the enjoyement of someone who doesn't post here anymore. I lift weights, male and i have another avatar i prefer over this one, but i don't think Thomas will let me use that one (-:

I think it was pretty obvious hes a male :P

[namtso]

..there's a thread on thebigview somewhere where i posted pics of me for the enjoyement of someone who doesn't post here anymore. I lift weights, male and i have another avatar i prefer over this one, but i don't think Thomas will let me use that one (-:* -* dots
Ooops sorry, I dialed the wrong number, my mistake, I guess the avatar threw me. (faking embarassment here .....)

I think it was pretty obvious hes a male* - MidnightSun
I'm not sure why you think so. I guess I just never figured that out. One of my sisters talks like a longshoreman. So does a good lady friend of mine that I used to date. So language/word selection is not really a good indicator. I only got a clue when dots asked a very specific question about weight lifting. He may have posted more personal stuff in the other forum subjects but I don't really go scanning that stuff. So far I've mostly stayed in certain forums that I'm interested in. And folks don't seem to like to go into their profile here at TBV and describe themselves very much or at all so it's difficult or impossible to know anything about them unless they make it a point to discuss it in a thread/post, private message or email etc. I made it a point to go and say some general stuff about myself in my TBV profile so people know something about who they're writing to (or ignoring, whatever the case may be, ar ar).

I did make an incorrect assumption based on dot's avatar. Considering it's a photo of a girl in a bathing suit, I hardly think that's surprising. Oh well. (faking more embarassment right here ==> <== ..... finished)

[scameter]

I think I'll do some pushups or run around the block or something ......

Well, honestly you could not be more impressive. You work out, you told me what's what (which I assume you are capable of doing about anything), and made me feel like a complete idiot, which only validated the fact that I already think I am an idiot. Thank you for displaying your power my friend. I was awed. :)

[______]

...and made me feel like a complete idiot, which only validated the fact that I already think I am an idiot.
Why do you think this way, Scam?

[namtso]

Well, honestly you could not be more impressive. You work out, you told me what's what (which I assume you are capable of doing about anything), and made me feel like a complete idiot, which only validated the fact that I already think I am an idiot. Thank you for displaying your power my friend. I was awed.
Sorry bout that, I'm no major big deal. I never got a college degree and I'm a blue collar worker subject to getting laid off at the whim of the big dogs and their precious budget. I just get the feeling you seem to cloud issues intentionally and try to push peoples buttons. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I've seen your posts where you seem to tear into other people some so I figured I could deal out a little sarcasm. I might have gotten the wrong impression. I'll go and dial back my comments aimed at you. And I was also trying to be funny but it probably came off a little too harsh.

[scameter]

Why do you think this way, Scam?

Because it's true. :)

Sorry bout that, I'm no major big deal. I never got a college degree and I'm a blue collar worker subject to getting laid off at the whim of the big dogs and their precious budget.

And I'm a mentally ill stuttering fat 15 year old. :)

I just get the feeling you seem to cloud issues intentionally and try to push peoples buttons.

I do neither. Although it is one method of mine, similar to one of Socrates methods with both of ours being essentially natural and unintentional unless examined post-act, I ask questions to show my discussion partners to the depths of an issue, so that the surface is not the only thing seen, and assumptions are not made without further investigation.

And I was also trying to be funny but it probably came off a little too harsh.

Not really, I personally saw it more as arrogance, but now that I know it was sarcasm/humour: :lol:

[______]

Because it's true.
And I'm a mentally ill stuttering fat 15 year old.
You must first love yourself before you can love others, Scam. Hope you learn that from this discussion. :)

[namtso]

And I'm a mentally ill stuttering fat 15 year old.
And with a decent sense of humor. And what's with the "no toes" thing on the "suicide" thread?

BTW, I'm 45 years old, single, no girlfriend, balding, little bit of a fat stomach, my knees are already starting to go due to the type of work I do, I've already had lower back surgery once for a blown disc and I still have acne. We all have our own "stuff" to varying degrees. Know what the great thing is? If you are honest, open, keep a sense of humor, show that you have self respect without being pompous or conceited and treat everyone the way you want to be treated yourself, you will have more friends than you can handle for the rest of your life. I'm not at all saying that you don't have those qualities right now (and I'm not saying I do have all of them), I'm just saying that the physical appearance and age thing don't amount to too much. Simple and true, take my word for it. Like the song by the Police - we are spirits in the material world. The body is only the vehicle for the spirit. Later scamster.

[scameter]

You must first love yourself before you can love others, Scam. Hope you learn that from this discussion.

I'm sure it'll be that easy. :)

And with a decent sense of humor.

:D Humour?

And what's with the "no toes" thing on the "suicide" thread?

Think about it.

BTW, I'm 45 years old, single, no girlfriend, balding, little bit of a fat stomach, my knees are already starting to go due to the type of work I do, I've already had lower back surgery once for a blown disc and I still have acne.

Like many other 45 year old men.

If you are honest, open, keep a sense of humor, show that you have self respect without being pompous or conceited and treat everyone the way you want to be treated yourself, you will have more friends than you can handle for the rest of your life.

Well, I know that's what I want. To be surrounded by people who I call "friends".

I'm just saying that the physical appearance and age thing don't amount to too much.

Oh no, they don't hinder me in this social society of ours.

The body is only the vehicle for the spirit.

And unfortunately, we're stuck in this vehicle. Bring out the jaws of life? :)

[scameter]

:D That's pretty good. Got any more?

[scameter]

:lol:

[______]

...this social society of ours.
Isn't a society a social structure? :D ;)

[namtso]

Well, I know that's what I want. To be surrounded by people who I call "friends". - scameter
A real big part of having friends is reciprocity. Reciprocity in respect, support, honesty etc. At the same time, when you push, I have the tendency to push back. It's instinctive with me as it is with most people. As to any physical conditions you might be dealing with, I am not aware of them, aside from those you mentioned. You've got a bazillion posts on this site and there's no way I'm going to go back and read them all. If you want me to know about anything specific, you are just going to have to tell me. It would be easy for me to just guess but that's a trap really, isn't it. Up to you.

And I guess I should also go ahead and say that I also fully realize that we basically have to trust that other folks are being relatively honest about what they say here. Whenever I or anyone else responds to what's said here on TBV we just have to make certain assumptions. Like the person we are responding to is trying to represent themselves and their opinion honestly. Otherwise, we could be just chasing ghosts so to speak or getting drawn in to an online conversation that someone is really just having with themselves while using their own multiple screen names. And just chewing up our screen time and personal free time. I don't worry quite so much about that because this is great for me to put those things I find interesting into words. It's a great tool for reflection and clarification of my own views. Plus, as I think I said elsewhere on TBV, since this is a public forum, anyone can read whats posted here and if they get some new insight or even if it only inspires them to possible think in a new direction that they find useful, then it's not wasted.

[scameter]

Isn't a society a social structure?

:) Yes, and our society is even more social that it has to be.

[______]

Yes, and our society is even more social that it has to be.
Yes, but humans are very social beings. Thus, our society is perfect. :)

[scameter]

:D Stereotyping. Our race is generally social, but that does not mean every member of the species is social. Because of such stereotyping by the government, individuals who are not social are treated poorly because they are seen as "defectant", such as myself.

[______]

Stereotyping. Our race is generally social, but that does not mean every member of the species is social. Because of such stereotyping by the government, individuals who are not social are treated poorly because they are seen as "defectant", such as myself.
You are very social here, though. :D :lol: Perhaps everyone only needs the correct medium for socializing.

[scameter]

I'm social here because it's just my mind, not my entirety, around people who like similar things as me. :)

[______]

Then this is your medium. :D I enjoy having you apart of the various discussions on this site, Scam.

[scameter]

B)

[Smurf]

^ :D




Hey I just realised that this post is called "Examing Death"?

[Michael]

And we debate with such conviction our different views of reality.

:lol:

[Arctic-Stranger]

Is this the the death of the "death" thread"?

[scameter]

I don't think so.

[______]

Death is always followed by rebirth, however. :D

[Starry_Canopy]

That was really funny! :lol:

[scameter]

the bible is not a simple issue

Nor is anything.

so there is no way to actually read the original bible

Actually, it does, in original Hebrew and Greek in the Vatican, but only the priests have real access to it. ;) But, to me, the Revised Standard Version is the most accurate, because it was written by a bunch of different priests from different kinds of churches with, supposedly, the goal of making it as accurate to the original as possible in English.

not always

Actually, in Buddhism, if someone dies it means they are still trapped in karma and are not enlightened, and thus must be reborn.

[______]

no

not always
:D No, I suppose Enlightenment leads to Nirvana which is the only escape from cyclic existance. Good point! ;)

[amadman]

If there was truely worlds in your fingertips then at death an unimaginable amount of worlds would be disrupted while your physical body brakes down and merges with the earth to become part of it.