Started By
Message
re: Does life have objective meaning?
Posted on 2/7/15 at 12:00 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 2/7/15 at 12:00 pm to Kentucker
quote:
That we exist proves the act of being conscious is a function of the brain.
I think that when he said "consciousness" he meant a universal, omnipresent consciousness. I noticed the weakness of the wording but went with what [I thought] he MEANT to say.
It has not been proved that consciousness is a product of the brain. On the contrary the origin of consciousness is the source of great scientific debate. It has been postulated that consciousness is created somewhere else, and that our brains are something along the likes of radio receivers/processors/amplifiers/distorters. Sounds crazy as hell I know. Like something postulated on an acid trip. But I believe that if you'll delve into the latest studies on the subject you'll be surprised. Your entire world view will be challenged, in fact.
1
Posted on 2/7/15 at 6:13 pm to derSturm37
quote:
It has not been proved that consciousness is a product of the brain.
Yes, it has. Most people make the mistake of regarding consciousness as a thing. It's better to say, "The act of being conscious." It's a process generated by the brain.
quote:
It has been postulated that consciousness is created somewhere else, and that our brains are something along the likes of radio receivers/processors/amplifiers/distorters.
Yes, this is crazy as hell. It's a wild philosophy without even a trace of scientific evidence.
quote:
But I believe that if you'll delve into the latest studies on the subject you'll be surprised. Your entire world view will be challenged, in fact.
If there is no empirical evidence being sought, the subject would not appeal to me. My reductionist, scientific foundation is extremely resistant to any philosophy that isn't seeking a natural explanation.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 8:14 pm to RedFoxx
quote:
You'd enter into the ultimate nihilist continuous cycle.
This is where entheogens come in handy!
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:09 pm to Kentucker
quote:
My reductionist, scientific foundation is extremely resistant to any philosophy that isn't seeking a natural explanation.
Define the limits (beginning AND end) of "natural" and then we'll advance...
This post was edited on 2/7/15 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:13 pm to derSturm37
What's your definition of a scientist?
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:14 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Define the limits (beginning AND end) of "natural" and then we'll advance...
I liked your first response. What is a scientist by your definition?
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:17 pm to Kentucker
quote:
I liked your first response. What is a scientist by your definition?
Scientist - noun. One whose personal philosophy is the quest for object truth via the scientific method.
This post was edited on 2/7/15 at 10:42 pm
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:40 pm to derSturm37
quote:
Scientist - noun. One whose personal philosophy is the quest for abject truth via the scientific method.
Except for the word abject, I think this is me.
Back at you:
Natural - adjective. Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by mankind.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:44 pm to Kentucker
Whilst waiting for your response I changed "abject" to "object". :lol: Yes, I am all about "natural". Nature is the Word of God. (The Bible, The Koran, The Vedas, et al AND et cetera, are pollutions).
Science must always and forever be ALL about the natural.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:49 pm to KSGamecock
no
we're all just products of a long arse string of somewhat random events that could've easily gone a different way
we're all just products of a long arse string of somewhat random events that could've easily gone a different way
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:57 pm to derSturm37
I was wondering about that.
I don't like the words abject or truth. Together they just reek of subjectivity, which has derailed many a good theory before it could get any kind of momentum.
Nature is the Word of God to you? Are you reconciling scientific discoveries with your personal beliefs? I wish more believers could do that, or at least try to instead of taking a blind stand against science.
I don't have any beliefs. I don't use that word in describing my outlook on anything. It's too hazy for me.
I don't like the words abject or truth. Together they just reek of subjectivity, which has derailed many a good theory before it could get any kind of momentum.
Nature is the Word of God to you? Are you reconciling scientific discoveries with your personal beliefs? I wish more believers could do that, or at least try to instead of taking a blind stand against science.
I don't have any beliefs. I don't use that word in describing my outlook on anything. It's too hazy for me.
Posted on 2/8/15 at 12:07 am to Kentucker
quote:
I don't have any beliefs. I don't use that word in describing my outlook on anything. It's too hazy for me
Then you, Sir, are [representative of] hope for our species.
Carry on. Continue. Please....
Posted on 2/8/15 at 7:28 am to Kentucker
quote:
If you like Sci-Fi, then you'd like it. It's a surprisingly well-done prequel to the Alien series of movies. There are no big-name stars but this makes it better, I think.
I like sci-fi, so probably. And isn't Fassbender in it? That's a pretty big star, IMO.
Posted on 2/8/15 at 7:36 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Fassbender
Posted on 2/8/15 at 8:42 am to TbirdSpur2010
Also in I is Charlize Theron and that black dude that is always a military officer or something else serious in random movies.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News