Community > Posts By > Strange

 
Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 09:19 AM
Better to burn in hell than serve in heaven- Milton

Besides all the intelligent non superstious people like scientists will be in hell, we'll figure something out.

If god did or didnt exist it would not change my conduct, and if you have to ask what if he did exist or what if he didnt, either way things are as they are regardless. So why even ask?

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 09:15 AM

That doesn't prove that time exists. It just proves that it seems to exist. It is not always the simplest answer that is the correct one. Reality as a whole is very complex. Time seems to flow linearly only because of the direction we are looking. If we turned our heads, (really turned them) we'd be able to look either way.


That made little sence. Do you feel you made a piont?

Is anything really provable? No axiom states that the simpliest awnser is the correct one. You stae time seems to flow linearly? How si it you observe this? Or is that just a metaphore?
If we turned our heads, (really turned them) we'd be able to look either way. <---- This is the only thing you claimed that seems to be supported by evidence, however its self-evident. Reality is not complex it just is, how we filter it can be complex, youre only stating your inability to grasp reality a whole, no one would disagree with this, especially on your behalf. Although I enjoy picking apart illl thought out ideas with no supporting points, I wonder is it worth the time?

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 09:07 AM
Is this the traditional omnipotent omniprescient Christain GOd?

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 07:08 AM

Freewill is an ill constructed concept, either there are immutable laws governing the universe, meaning everything is predetermined, or there is an element of chance as displayed in quantum physics. Either way there is no room for freewill.
If we postulate that free will is dependent upon physical laws, then of course the concept contradicts the postulate. As I've said before, the very concept of free will contradicts the deteministic/probablilistic postulate that is the foundation of science. Thus, free will is not a scientific concept, it is a philosophical one.

An interesting experiment done ny a neuro-scientist demonstarted that you dont feel or think or register anything in your concious untill after .5 seconds after the neuron has fired. Meaning conciousness is passive and does not iniate anything especially thought.

That particular experiment (http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm) has several disputable points in premise, procedure and conclusion.

This is simple and makes sence and I really dont think it can be any other way as our conciousness is estimated to be able to process about 10-100 bits of informatin a second, our total brain proceses are estimated to process 11 millions bits of information a second. ANother interesting view is that if the universe is a closed system than it is predictatable if there are immutable laws, if it is infinite an infinite amount of forces would be acting upon one other and therefore completely hindering any predictability as a whole. Again either way no room for freewill as an absolute.
Yes, but again, free will, by definition, cannot be dependent upon either a deterministic or a random system. Arguing that it cannot exist because it contradicts the laws of the physical universe is meaningless. The fact that it contradicts those laws is the very thing that makes it what it is. That is its defining feature.


Wow hey did you look up that experiment? Awsome. The rebuttals were far from well stated and I know of no competing experiment contradicting the results. This in itself pretty much demonstaes that freewill is not an absolute, desicion is always based on previous experince social values and a multitute of other influences. Free will can nevr be an absolute. EVEn if you built a super computer which accounted all varaibles there seems to alwasy be an element of chance in our universe. These are just fun thought experiments, I think the conclusions are obvious and if youd like to read the full book its called the USER ILLUSION.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 06:49 AM

I agree with Jeannie, she just words it better than me!




Look into quantum physics, and the idea of emergent properties. Very intersting stuff.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 06:48 AM

Comparing a brain to a computer is a good analogy. But a computer, no matter how good it is put together, will only do what it is programed to do. It will not go out and find its own programing and install it. (Unless it is programed to do so.) It will not uninstall programs it does not like. It does not think. It only processes information and runs programs. It only does what it is programed to do.

So the brain is not the person and it does not make conscious choices, it only processes programs. Neither does the brain go out and find programs and install them or delete programs on its own that it does not like.

The brain does not think. It only runs programs. It does not make decisions outside of its programing instructions. Most decisions people make are a result of programing and are mostly automatic and unconscious.

In some computers there are learning programs that actually learn new things. There is probably a learning program in the human brain too that makes it appear that the brain can think, but it does not think, it only collects new information via sensory input and processes it. It may then make "decisions" according to the new information it has gathered but that is still only part of the programing.










Thats nice and all, reminds me of the materialist movement hundreds of years ago. However explain the subjective experience of emotion. You ever see a computer feel sad? Perhaps they can simulate it but it is as similar to a simulated explosion.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 06:39 AM
Also for those not aware many factors play into "love" you are just in denial by idealiszation of the concept. Long term couples have been found to have similar ratios of facial features, pheromones, and other chacaterisics that are precicved on a subconcious level, producing desire and a bias when observing that person, as in not seeing the negative aspects. Love has everything to do with chemistry and neurology not your idealisms. Ive heard peopel say what its not, well you can exlude the concept of love at first sight simply by defining love. It is a feeling, not a evaluation, or a social standing, or access to resources, or a steping stone for your benefit. Similar behavioral patterns are found in long term couples as well, this may indicate similar neuro chemistry. Love at first sight is completely possible, however if you idealize your defintions and think of relationships as standards, which love seems > long term in reagrds to intensity. Its a biological reaction, not a set of values you scrutinize for whatever reason. I will say love is the subjective experience of intense desire and idealization of the individual of interest. This effect fades over time. Love at first sight is farmore common than love at last sight.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 06:26 AM

lust would be the word. Not love, What if the person turned out to be a loser with no job and on drugs etc etc. Would u still love them after finding that out ?...more than likely you would pass on that.


Hi maintance conditional love huh? So i suppose love is a product of social adjustedment for your benefit....thats called self love. Some people are not very intuitive about others these may not experience love at first site. Also with the cinderella complex it may be hard to find anything tolerable in general.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 06:21 AM
Yes time exists, with or without observers. Defining such a concept is difficult because its experienced subjectively, a few math equations show it is not uniform and is itself shaped and distorted by other forces in the universe. I'ts actually a very good question, lemme get back to you on it.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 06:13 AM
Safe assumptions, you like wholistic foods and medicine. Practice your own religion or one similiar to buddism. Theres a 80% chance you have had your shakras cleaned. 85% chance you had a psychic or tarot card reading. 70% chnace you belivev in reincarnation. You have read siddhartha, also you may believe in the healing effects of cyrstals. Most likely youngest child and your parents had you when they were older than average.????? Or im just making stabs in the dark....like yourself

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:38 AM


smittenIs it possible to love or be in love with a stranger (someone you haven't talked to but every time you see that person, you just know that you already love him/her and it's not infatuation)?:heart:


you have to ignore the staples in the middle of the page!!


Irony

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:34 AM

Now, the bothersome door-knocking habit of missionaries is not that common in my whereabouts, but that does not mean you will not get your fair share of threshold-to-threshold ministry. The only time when I did get what seemed like an alien invasion was when I was staying at a friend's house in New Jersey. I would be lying if I wanted to tell you with strict precision which church they belonged to, but they did have an excellent sense of the opportunity and approached me when I was to walk my friend's dog in the morning or early evening. When intercepted, I tried hard to be polite and defer the encounter for later, the usual word I resorted to being "tomorrow". Such term bore literal interpretation value to them, so the next day I was once again questioned about my beliefs and deeds (the latter being far more interesting than the former).

Perhaps you will not be surprised if I disclosed my feeling of anxiety every time my friend's cute puppy made for the kitchen to fetch the leash. I did not take their intervention in my affairs as a game of wits or a personal offense; to me, it was just another waste of time and energy caused by wrong assumptions as regards the universe and its tenants. Intellectual sloth, at its best; intellectual irresponsibility, if bad comes to worse.

They say human beings are capable of a certain reasoning process called abduction. I did not know whether the answer I came up with to disrupt my adversaries' assets (infinite patience, endless resilience and imperviousness to rudeness -not that I tried to test this last one-) was ethically adequate, but my meager brains were not in a position to snatch a more promising option than prejudice. I had long suspected that conversion was the aim of each and every group of door-bangers, and that the capture of a non-believer's flag would be the ultimate prize. My advice to those of you still striving to be left alone is NEVER to reveal you are either atheists or agnostics. Such blunder would amount to exposing a juicy flank to their guns. Instead, I opted for an easy way out, however vile, however tricky. I just said I was Jewish (I am not, in fact). After seeing an undecipherable look (maybe a bit of a glare) mask their faces, and their faces become fast-disappearing backs under a wintry morning sun, I saw them no more. My ruse did not work just once, but twice, the second time in another country, another cultural environment, and definitely another religious denomination.

Jews are not indeed famous for proselytizing, but I wonder whether my stratagem would have succeeded the other way round.




Dont you ever out pretencious me again, ever.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:31 AM

No amount of beautiful theory trumps experiment.

flowerforyou
As far as I know, "trumping experiment" has never been the purpose of any theory or philosophy, or the desire of any theoretician or philosopher.


Hes just repeating something he heard, dont worry he has no real ideas. SOme scientist so and so hwatever said that.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:27 AM

Science is nothing more than the study of forces and matter and what we can observe and measure, it is a system designed to be objective and build upon confirmed therorys or laws until they are demonstarted not be. Nothing more nothing less, religion implies or is defined by a set of morals or beliefs which seems to be concerned with governing the conduct of human beings, science has no such set of rules and anyone can be one, beliefs and requirements which demand obediance to ideas that are unprovable or can not be demonstarted is what science is not. Religion seeks to preserve its ideas at all cost where as science will readily give up an idea proven faulty or unprovable. This is why some scientists are agnostic, this make religious people think that science is anti religion. So they "meaning some religious people" have tried to argue that nothing is provable and therefore science is a belief or religion. Howevr the characteristics of the two are remarkably differant.

ANyone read this? Its over hush.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:24 AM



"Shouldn't this be in a religious forum?"

‘Free will’ is only free will if it is used WITHOUT outside influences. ANY outside influence determines how you use it, thus negates said free will.



No it doesn't. How did you come to that conclusion?

And the will has little to do with "religion."

Religion in general, simply uses that term a lot. Deep down, they actually hate the idea of "free" will. They even try to distort it meaning to mean a choice between following Jesus or not, or between good or evil.

Just because a decision is "influenced" does not mean that it is not an action of the will or that the will is not "free."

The will involves an inner decision on where to place our attention and how to direct ourselves. It is the power to direct ourselves and our thoughts and feelings.

The will is either weak or strong. It is always free. Your are endowed with a will naturally and it comes in the same degree as your conscious awareness.

Even a bacteria has a will. It's influence and strength is according to it own conscious awareness of its surroundings.




Well said this made my day.


I think i covered this in another thread. Actually as is usually the case no one disputed it. This made my day as well, pure comedy.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:20 AM
Philosphy is the investigation of reality usually through subjective observation, to objective about oneself and devoid of self-perception suits this end. WHere does love factor into this, also have you been drinking? Lets have your philosphy of love, more than a simple statement would be nice you may fair better in christain chat.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:16 AM

well according to christianity, time does not really exist, god created it because our simple minds couldnt grasp the concept of eternity!!


Hmmmm could you get me that verse from the bible?

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 02:02 AM
Excellant piece regarding a topic on the philosphical concept of peace. Very nice.

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 01:58 AM


If you stay in the forums you will find all men are jerks


No, not jerks.... either nice guys or emotionally unavailable.... or sociopaths....laugh

No, wait, that means jerks... you were right.

Kidding, OP.flowerforyou


Hey i resemble that

Strange's photo
Tue 12/30/08 01:56 AM

I changed around some things so there is nothing sexual about it! I wanna know what you think! I crave other peoples opinions! lol laugh

Get over yourself, hey american idol is on!