Community > Posts By > NovaRoma

 
NovaRoma's photo
Sat 11/21/09 06:43 PM
Do ideas, symbolism, or spirituality exist if you remove the physical human? My belief is no. That without the neural network of interactions between charged particles to interpret an idea, it does not exist.

It only serves to define non-physical in an abstract manner,or under a specific context. A proper definition should be apparently obvious and unarguable. I think non-physical only applies to the space beyond the outer reaches of the universe, or the space between matter.

NovaRoma's photo
Sat 11/21/09 12:31 AM
Space is infinite but the universe is finite. Because the universe encompasses everything that exists (all matter) and beyond that is just space.

NovaRoma's photo
Sat 11/21/09 12:19 AM
Just to be a nerd. I will reply with this. Ideas are essentially electrical impulses in the brain. So they are physical.

NovaRoma's photo
Sat 11/21/09 12:00 AM
objective: being the purpose of an argument. To come to some sort of conclusion on a matter.

(Does god exist? Yes, No, or both yes and no)
(Are mashed potatoes better than french fries? Yes or No)

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 11:49 PM
Edited by NovaRoma on Fri 11/20/09 11:53 PM
Sky:
Well touche indeed. Maybe my post was a bit harsh, but I was following the argument over from a different tread and really wanted Abracadabra to explain his position without sidestepping. When he finally did I was upset to have spent the time reading his responses to find out he had nothing to respond with.

Abracadabra:
Just find that if there are two ways to express an idea
one: clear, concise, in everyday language and terminology
two: Long, obscure, using jargon

You choose #2, and that is in my opinion pompous

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 11:40 PM
Self serving in I feel many philosophers get a mental hard-on when they make a good argument and are very pleased with themselves not so much what they have accomplished in regards to the objective of the argument.

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 11:34 PM
I am right until I am wrong. I post because I can. I argue because I am confrontational, and If I can answer someone's question or contribute to a meaningful discussion...then great. But, if I can point out a hypocrite or someone speaking out of their arse then even better.

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 11:25 PM
Edited by NovaRoma on Fri 11/20/09 11:29 PM
Yep I read that in an earlier post. Sorry but I think they are all grouped under the sense of touch. It is very complex sense with lots of different nerves but still just the sense of touch.

And please do not use the phrase "is accepted by modern science". Because science is not a thing that accepts. Scientists are, and even then you cannot speak for everyone. If you want to provide a scientific source to back up your argument fine, but don't just say all of science supports my view.

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 11:10 PM
There are 7 senses.

1. Smell
2.Touch
3. Taste
4. Hearing
5. Sight
6. Knowing where are body is in relation to the rest of are body (touching your nose while your eyes are closed).
7. Knowing where your body is in relation to the earth (gravity).

Spiritual senses do not exist. Not saying something spiritual does not exist just that senses are biologically based not spiritual.

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 10:59 PM
Science is great to offer support to an idea or theory. With it we have learned so much about the natural world and the universe, but it has limitations. It cannot be used on anything that you cannot test (i.e. God). Philosophy on the other hand can be applied to all, but philosophy is quite annoying, often pointless, and self-serving. A philosopher will not even attempt to come to a resolution on a matter. They will kick up dust with their arguments and complain because now they cannot see clearly.

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 10:41 PM
The global warming argument is not even a scientific argument. Sorry to inform you it is a political one. Scientists are not arguing this one.

NovaRoma's photo
Fri 11/20/09 10:34 PM
Non-physical could have many definitions depending on the context of its use. In the most basic definition I can think of, you think of everything that is physical and non-physical is whatever is left.

On a side note Mr. Abracadabra is annoying in regards to this topic. Just an observation. What is the point of writing a big long reply, quoting ancient philosophy, claiming experimental data but not referencing it, and purposely writing in a pompous know it all fashion. Only in the end to say I don’t know and if I did I would be a millionaire. What the hell is precise about that? Hello McFly…Knock…knock…knock… get over yourself. JMO

NovaRoma's photo
Sat 10/24/09 02:19 PM
I have been living in El Paso for a couple of months and been pretty busy. Havent had a chance to make connections or find fun places to go. Just looking to get out of the house and meet some people.

1 2 3 5 Next